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

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a person responsible for the maintenance and management of the road at the location where the following accidents occurred.

B. Around 21:00 on November 15, 201, C, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it along the three-lanes of Songdo 2, Songdo-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the instant road”) along the two-lanes in the direction of Songdo-dong, the front part of the D vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) driven in the central separation zone (the height of 28cc and 101cc) was shocked into the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while neglecting its duty of care in the direction of Songdo-gu, Incheon, and then changing the two-lanes into one-lane in order to avoid any prior vehicle discovered at the latest in the direction of the Songdo-si City, and subsequently, he shocked the front part of the D vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) going beyond the central separation zone to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side, and shocked the fence at the edge of the road.

(See attached Form 3, referring to the “accident site map,” and hereinafter referred to as the “accident.”

As a result of the instant accident, one passenger of the Plaintiff vehicle died, another passenger of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the driver and the passenger of the victimized vehicle were injured, and the Plaintiff paid the victims the amount of KRW 591,758,790 as damages, KRW 4,170,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle, and KRW 34,171,590 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the road of this case, which is the cause of the claim, is highly likely to cause collisions caused by the median line, and thus, it is necessary to install a protective fence at the center of the central separation unit, the defendant did not install a protective fence at the center of the central separation unit, and the accident of this case is defective in the construction and management of the road of this case and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.