2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract (at least 30 years of age, family members’ limit) with Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. Around 11:10 on March 29, 2013, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving at the entrance intersection of the D Hospital in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) shocked the E and F, which dried the crosswalk pursuant to the pedestrian signals; (b) was inflicted on E, by shocking the light base, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained each injury, such as f’s climatic he/shedal he/shed, f, f, f,

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the instant accident, the said intersection was equipped with a black signal (hereinafter “instant auxiliary signal, etc.”). However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to recognize the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk while the instant auxiliary signal, etc. was driven by green lights, etc. while the instant auxiliary signal, etc. was driven by right-hand, and caused the instant accident.

Afterward, the Plaintiff spent KRW 112,268,890 in total, KRW 110,953,540 in E and KRW 112,268,890 in terms of medical expenses, etc. incurred in the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul 1 and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant auxiliary signal, etc. installed at the entrance and intersection of the hospital was green, etc., and the instant accident occurred on the wind, etc. due to the malfunction of the signal system and the malfunction of the signal system, even though the pedestrian signal on the crosswalk installed at the right direction should have been reded.

Thus, the accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the defendant, who is the person responsible for the installation and management of signal apparatus in Suwon-si, not properly checking or controlling the operation of the above signal apparatus, and the degree of contribution of the defendant to the occurrence of the accident of this case is at least 40%.