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 comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

B. On April 13, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the foregoing vehicle at around 20:40, while driving along the song-do located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant road”) along the direction of Cheongra Underground Road in the family distance, and was passing on the top of Manle (hereinafter “the instant Manle”), which was installed in the middle part of the said road, the relationship in which the instant Manle lid was opened, led to the loss of the wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 372,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The manager or possessor of the road of this case alleged by the plaintiff is the defendant, and the manager or possessor of the road of this case is the defect in the construction and management of the road of this case, which is a public structure or structure.

In addition, the defendant is also a manager or possessor of the Mandole of this case.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the manager or possessor of the road of this case or the last person of this case, is liable under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act or Article 758 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is liable to pay the indemnity to the plaintiff, who is the insurer who compensates for the damages

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed because he is not a manager or an occupant in the first instance trial. However, as long as the plaintiff's lawsuit is asserted as a person who is responsible for an action by the plaintiff, the above argument is without merit.

The road of this case is 35-40 meters wide, and the road of this case is above according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes ( Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs, etc.).