[1] The person liable for damages under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act (=the person to whom the construction and management of public structures belongs)

[2] The subject to whom the Korea Rural Community Corporation established pursuant to Article 16 (1) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act belongs (=Korea Rural Community Corporation)

[3] The case holding that in case where an accident occurred that dump trucks dump trucks dump trucks dump trucks dump trucks dump trucks collapse while driving a dump truck on the State-owned land, the State does not bear liability for damages against Gap since the Korea Rural Community Corporation is the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which is an agricultural infrastructure installed by the Korea Rural Community Corporation

[1] Articles 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 16 (1) and (3) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act / [3] Articles 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 2 subparagraph 3 (see Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the current Act), Article 2 subparagraph 4 (see Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the current Act), Article 16 (1) (see Article 16 (1) of the current Act), and Article 16 (3) (see Article 16 (3) of the former Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 (Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 2 and four others (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Cheongju, Attorneys Cho Jae-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Na10003 Decided May 31, 2012

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. The plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, while Plaintiff 1 driving a dump truck on June 25, 201 (vehicle number omitted) 25.5 tons, and driving a road installed in the land (location omitted) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant road”), the accident where the said dump truck was collapsed due to the collapse of the instant road. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, on August 29, 1989, included the name of the 30th project implementer on September 30, 1989 as the “the president of the Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation” and the 20th project implementation plan for the Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation on January 29, 2000, which was established on June 20, 200, included the name of the 30th project owner of the instant agricultural infrastructure on June 30, 200, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry changed to the “the president of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation,” and the 3th project implementation plan for the said Corporation on March 27, 20001.

Based on the above facts, the lower court determined that the State or a local government is liable to compensate for damages based on the following facts: (a) the president of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation is the project implementer in the specific process of implementing the project for building and managing the road of this case; (b) the Korea Rural Community Corporation becomes the management entity of the road of this case under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act; (c) the Korea Rural Community Corporation is delegated with the construction and management of the road of this case under the Act; (d) unlike the case where the duties of the local government are delegated to the head of a local government on the sole ground that the Korea Rural Community Corporation is a juristic person established under special Acts and subordinate statutes unlike local governments, it is difficult to reasonably interpret the entity to be deemed an independent juristic person; and (e) the provision of Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act, rather than narrowly interpreting that the State or a local government is the actual entity of the construction and management of the road of this case as the main body of the road of this case, which is the State or a local government, separately from the construction and management liability of this case.

B. (1) The first sentence of Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that “When any damage is inflicted on another person due to defective construction or management of a road, river, or any other public structure, the State or a local government shall compensate for such damage.” Article 6(1) of the same Act provides that “Where the State or a local government is liable for compensating for the damage pursuant to Articles 2, 3, and 5, a person who is in charge of the appointment and supervision of a public official or the construction and management of a public structure shall compensate for such damage unless the person who is not the person who is in charge of the construction and management of the public official’s salary, salary, or other expenses, or the cost of construction and management of a public structure is the same.” As such, Article 6(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that “Where the State or a local government is liable for damages on the ground of a defect in the construction and management of a public structure, the person who is in charge of construction and management of the public structure shall also be liable for such damage.”

(2) Meanwhile, Article 16(1) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act provides that "When an agricultural infrastructure improvement project is completed, the implementer of the agricultural infrastructure improvement project shall manage the agricultural infrastructure installed as the project in question." Accordingly, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which is the installer of the road in this case, has the authority to manage the road in this case at the time of the instant accident after the construction of the road in this case. However, Article 16(3) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act provides that "the agricultural infrastructure acquired by the Korea Rural Community Corporation pursuant to Article 16(2) of the same Act, that is, "the agricultural infrastructure installed as an agricultural infrastructure improvement project implemented by the State" and "the agricultural infrastructure managed by the local government, which is requested by the competent Minister to the Korea Rural Community Corporation to be acquired and managed by the relevant government, among the agricultural infrastructure managed by the local government, shall comprehensively take over the rights and obligations of the State, local government, etc. that occurred in relation to the agricultural infrastructure that the relevant government, etc. decided to acquire and manage, not to the Korea Rural Community Corporation.

(3) Examining the facts in light of the above legal principles, since the road of this case was built by the Korea Rural Community Corporation through the agricultural infrastructure improvement project, the construction and management of the road of this case belongs to the Korea Rural Community Corporation from the time of the construction to the time of the accident of this case. However, as seen earlier, in order for the defendant to be liable for damages due to defects in the construction and management of the public structure of this case, the main agent to whom the construction and management of the public structure of this case belongs shall be the defendant. As long as the main agent to whom the construction and management of the road of this case belongs is the Korea Rural Community Corporation, the defendant is not liable for damages

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, deemed that the Plaintiff was entitled to State liability pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act even against the Defendant, on the premise that the person to whom the construction and management of the instant road belongs is the Defendant, separate from imposing liability for damages under Article 758 of the Civil Act on the Korea Rural Community Corporation. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of liability for damages under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The Plaintiffs asserted that the lower court’s recognition of Plaintiff 1’s negligence was unlawful in determining the Defendant’s liability for damages against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the Defendant’s liability for damages against Plaintiff 1. However, as long as the lower judgment that recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages on the grounds as seen earlier is reversed, the first Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on a different premise cannot be accepted without further need to be determined.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The plaintiffs asserts that the court below omitted the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion based on the defendant's river management defects, and that the error ratio of plaintiff 1's negligence would significantly lose equity. However, since the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to deem that the river itself abutting on the road of this case was in a state where it was not equipped with the safety ordinarily required for its use, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted, even if the court below omitted the judgment on the above assertion, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)