A. Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s KRW 86,152,173 as well as 5% per annum from July 12, 2017 to August 1, 2019.

A. At around 18:25 on November 27, 2015, B driven a C Car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and continued to run the 372-lane Do-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun, located on the front of the Gyeonggi-do, Daejeon-do Do Do Gun. On the ground that the Do Do Do Do Do Do was negligent and did not discover that the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do was coming into the front part of the road where the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do was coming into the front part of the road where the Do Do Do Do Do

B. The foregoing accident caused the driver E of B and the damaged vehicle, and all of the two vehicles were destroyed.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 144,892,680 in total, as follows, from December 4, 2015 to July 12, 2017, pursuant to an automobile comprehensive insurance contract entered into with B’s wife F and the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Personal damage of the motor vehicle that caused the damage to the motor vehicle of KRW 34,60,590 from December 31, 2015 to March 28, 2016 to KRW 34,604,590 from March 28, 2016 to KRW 700 from March 7, 2016 to KRW 4,031,70 from December 4, 2015 to March 7, 2016, the personal damage of the motor vehicle of KRW 97,196,390 from December 18, 2015 to December 97, 2017 to July 12, 2017 on the part of the plaintiff.

D. Defendant Gyeonggi-do is the road management agency of the road where an accident occurred, and the above Mando Man is the Defendant Republic of Korea (Sik-gun, 2136 unit).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's 1 through 3, 10 through 15 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the above accident was concurrent between B’s negligence due to negligence in Jeonju-si and the Defendants’ responsibility for defects in the construction and management of the last and road as follows.

The background of the accident and the process of the argument in this case are shown.