beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.26 2018가단5073566

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the Company A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the manager of the instant road as seen below.

B. On August 20, 2016, at around 11:45, B driving the instant vehicle, and falling down below the opposite direction by escaping from the median line to the left-hand side while driving a road of 487 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) on the Cheongcheon-ro, Cheongcheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheongcheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheongcheon-do (hereinafter “instant road”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant motor vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and the instant motor vehicle was damaged by B and passengers.

C. Under the instant automobile insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 110,335,120,00 in total as insurance money to B, Swiftships, Inc.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s asserted point falls under “a dangerous section of the road,” which is established by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, or “a section where the installation of a protective fence is deemed effective on the road with a high risk of an accident or danger,” and thus, the Defendant, who is the manager of the instant road, did not install a protective fence even though the Defendant, who is obligated to install a protective fence, to prevent a vehicle from falling away from the instant road and from spreading damage therefrom.

In addition, according to the above guidelines, the protection fences installed in the same section of the road and traffic conditions should be continuously installed except in extenuating circumstances, but the defendant installed the protection fences only before the point of accident in this case.

The accident of this case is a defect in the construction and preservation of the road of this case.