2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a person who installs and manages a traffic signal apparatus installed in the new village distance intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) located in the new village in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

B. On October 16, 2016, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the instant intersection from the educt bank to the educt bank, it shocked the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B, which entered the instant intersection in accordance with green new, from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, from the modern department store room to the Seo River University room in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s moving toward the instant intersection in accordance with green new subparagraph (hereinafter “road”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the accident, the traffic signal for the opposite vehicle driving direction at the time of the accident, although the traffic signal for the plaintiff vehicle was a green signal, green signal was rapidly occupied, and the opposite vehicle entered the intersection in accordance with the above green signal was revealed in the police investigation.

From October 28, 2016 to November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid C, a driver of the other vehicle, KRW 3,716,920 as medical expenses, KRW 30,00 as agreed amount, KRW 3,280,00 as repair expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 7,296,920 as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred because the Defendant did not take any safety measures without neglecting any operation of the signal apparatus, despite its duty to preserve and manage the signal apparatus of this case as a person installing and managing the signal apparatus of this case.