This article was published on the ChosunBizRMReport site at 4:38 p.m. on Sept. 2, 2026.
Record torrential rains are pounding many parts of the country, with flood and landslide damage following one after another. After extreme rainfall hit Geoje and Tongyeong in South Gyeongsang during the Liberation Day holiday, heavy rain damage continued at the end of last month. In particular, in Geoje, one person died and two were injured when a slope behind an apartment building collapsed.
When torrential rain causes damage, attention also turns to whether affected residents can file for damages against the state or local governments.
Legal sources explain that liability is not determined simply by "how much rain fell." Key criteria include whether there were management defects in public facilities, whether the risk could have been anticipated in advance, and whether measures could have been taken to prevent or reduce the damage.
◇Could the torrential rain have been anticipated? Safety of facilities and foreseeability weighed
According to legal sources on the 3rd, Article 5 of the State Compensation Act provides that if damage occurs due to defects in the installation or management of public facilities such as roads or rivers, the state or local governments shall compensate.
In June, the Changwon District Court recognized local government liability for government compensation in a damages suit filed by residents affected by river flooding in Gimhae against South Gyeongsang Province and Gimhae City.
From Sept. 19 to 22, 2024, Gimhae saw 427.8 mm of rain due to a weakened tropical depression from typhoon "Pulasun." Gimhae City argued, "It rained as much as a once-in-200-years event, so flooding would have been difficult to prevent even if the embankment had been properly installed." However, the court found that the flooding occurred due to defects in the installation and management of the river embankment. Still, considering the record torrential rain and the city's disaster alert text messages, it limited liability to 50%.
The Jeonju District Court also ruled partly in favor of a farmer who suffered flood damage from 2023 downpours in a lawsuit against North Jeolla Province. The court found that soil and branches that flowed down from the mountain clogged the drain and caused flooding, yet the local government did not sufficiently consider measures such as expanding the drain or installing facilities to prevent sediment inflow. However, considering the impact of the heavy rain, it limited liability to 50%.
Attorney Kim Kyeong-soo of law firm Changkyeong said, "Even if liability for damages is recognized, the proportion of liability can vary depending on whether disaster text alerts were actually sent and what warning or control measures the local government decided and implemented," adding, "You can check related internal documents or records of actions through a freedom of information request."
Attorney Byeon Jin-hwan of law firm Dongin said, "For public facilities such as embankments and rivers, what matters is whether they maintained the necessary level of safety under normal conditions," adding, "Not only the facilities themselves but also whether the risk could have been anticipated in advance, and whether evacuation or control could have reduced the damage, are subject to judgment."
◇Debate over whether the Geoje accident is classified as private property and the scope of government compensation liability
The Geoje accident presents issues different from previous cases. In the Gimhae and Jeonju cases, rivers and drainage facilities managed by local governments were at issue, but in this accident the point of soil collapse lies within the apartment complex site.
South Gyeongsang Province provisionally classified the cause of the accident as "slope (artificial embankment) washout," not a "landslide" originating in a forest. It cited factors such as the collapsed slope being a tract of land within the apartment site boundary rather than a natural mountain on paper, and being artificially formed.
Depending on the final classification, the entity responsible for restoration costs may change. If it is determined to be a slope washout within private property, the owner is, in principle, responsible for the expense of restoring retaining walls or slopes.
However, whether disaster recovery funds are provided and whether there is government compensation liability are separate issues. Even if a slope is on private property, government compensation may come into question depending on who installed or managed the retaining wall or drainage facilities, and whether the local government had a legal duty to survey, inspect, or manage the risk in the area.
Attorney Kim Kyeong-soo said, "The administrative classification of slope washout is only a criterion for determining whether to provide disaster recovery funds and is separate from government compensation liability," adding, "Even for an artificial slope, if the local government had a duty under the law to survey, inspect, or manage the risk and failed to do so, government compensation liability may be at issue."