Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C Coindo motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), and the Defendant is responsible for managing the road at the following accident site.

B. D, around 13:00 on Nov. 4, 2016, driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle at one-lanes of the two-lanes on the front three-lanes in front of the Jinju-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, one-lanes in front of the Jinju-gun, and driving the vehicle in violation of signal signals from the above three-lanes, which was left left at the opposite lane in accordance with the new subparagraph, and fell down to a river under approximately 5-7 meters after the collision with the road edge protection fence, beyond the delivery boundary seat on the right side of the direction.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident” is the case where the instant automobile is crashed by the protective fence and fall into the river.

Due to the accident in this case, D suffered injuries in need of stability and medical treatment for about 12 weeks, such as sugar and franchising of light water.

On August 2017, the Plaintiff paid D insurance money of KRW 190,145,660 as insurance money and KRW 17,730,000 as total loss expenses of the instant vehicle, under the pretext of medical treatment and agreement.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the road management agency of the accident site of this case should install a protective fence for vehicles in compliance with the standards between the sidewalk and the roadway of the accident site.

In addition, even in the case of installing a protective fence on the right side of the report of the accident site of this case, a protective fence meeting the performance standards of the above road was installed, but the protective fence was installed below the performance standards.

Due to the foregoing defects in the construction and management of public structures, the instant motor vehicle was crashed by railing and falling into the river.

The defendant's fault ratio in the accident of this case is 20%.

The defendant is the driver of the automobile of this case.