판례에 나타난 도로의 하자

On the Flaw of Road according to the Judicial Precedent

Recently, it is more and more important whether national or local government is responsible for the flaw of road, or not. According to the judicial precedent of the Supreme Court, national or regional government can be responsible for the flaw of the road surface such as ice formation, stone obstacle and so on, and for the flaw of the traffic equipment such as street tree, signal lamp and so on. And recently, the Supreme Court decided that the government is responsible for the noise of the road that cannot be unendurable. It is difficult to find out the criterion of responsibility of government. The Supreme Court ruled that government is not responsible when the government cannot foresee or avoid the flaw of road. Namely, the possibility of foreseeing or avoiding the flaw is the criterion of responsibility of government. It is more important, who between the government and the private person prove the possibility of foreseeing or avoiding the flaw. On this question, the precedent is indistinct. I think that the government should prove the impossibility of foreseeing or avoiding, in order to protect the victim. According the precedent, for the flaw of the road that is not accomplished and is not used by the general public, national or local government is not responsible. Considering that a national or a local government cannot manage the road that is being constructed, I think it is right. Whether national government is responsible for the flaw of the Expressway or not, is in a controversy. On this question, the precedent is indistinct. I think that government can be responsible.