손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendant D is dismissed.
2. Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City: Plaintiff A, 99,919.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 23, 2012, while under the influence of alcohol at 02:23% of alcohol content, Plaintiff A driven Oral eba, left left at the direction of G shooting distance from the f3rd line in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, followed by approximately 60 meters in length, 3.5 meters in length, 1.2 meters in width, and 16 meters in width, left the center, resulting in damage to meral ebal gun in the left-hand left-hand side, while driving at the top of the 3rd line in the direction of G shooting distance, and driving at approximately 60 meters in length (hereinafter “instant road”).
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The road in this case was occupied and managed by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the graveler who was located at this place is for the landscaping project of the street trees group (hereinafter “instant construction”) that the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Gangdong-gu”) ordered and implemented by the defendant corporation D (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) and was located at the lower day.
At the time of the instant accident, no warning board or construction sign, etc. was installed to inform the above obstacles on the road, and only two mobile Rabcons were installed on the outside of the road.
C. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs' accident of this case occurred concurrently with the negligence of the defendant, who is the contractor of the construction of this case, who is the contractor of the construction of this case, who is responsible for the direction and supervision as the contractor of the construction of this case, and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is the owner and manager of the road of this case, who is the owner and manager of the road of this case, who does not install the signs of the construction or the prevention of entry into the site even after stockpiling the gravel dangerous to the road of this case. Thus, the defendants jointly cooperate with the plaintiff A about the amount of KRW 242,507,051 lost income of KRW 179,870,514, 12,59