구상금
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the construction executor of the “construction project for the construction project for the core sections for the construction project on the main line of the Busan Port.”
B. Around 22:00 on September 5, 2017, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle C, who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the construction site of the Yan-gu, Jan-gu, Jandong-gu, Jinolol-si, and driven through the entrance of the Yandong-gu, Jinolol-do (hereinafter “section prior to the instant accident site”) and driven through the entrance of the Yan-gu, Jinol-gu, Jinol-si (hereinafter “the section prior to the instant accident site”) while driving through the entrance of the Yan-gu, Jinol-gu, Jinol-do, the driver collisioned with the PE bank protection fence installed at the end of the road site and fell into the construction site.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Until September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 42,640,000 as insurance money for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the damage of the three-wheeled flag, and the damage to the protective fence due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 through 9-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 10, 14, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the occupant and manager of the instant accident location, and the person responsible for the prevention of accidents until road works are completed.
The Defendant is a slope in the end of the road, and the vehicle is likely to fall at night because there is no lighting at all, and thus, the Defendant did not install warning lights, flickering lights, and external lighting around the location of the instant accident, but did not install them. Although the PE preventive fence is installed in the section prior to the instant accident site, some of them are open, so the Plaintiff’s vehicle was able to proceed to the instant accident site, and the Defendant did not perform its duty to take protective measures to prevent the instant accident.