B Around 21:40 on April 24, 2013, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the National Highway Nos. 37 on the west-gun, Geumnam-gun, Geumsan-gun, the head of the Sinsan-gun, the head of the Sinsan-gun, the head of the Sinsan-gun, the head of the Sinsan-gun, the head of the Sinsan-gun, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu,

(A) On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 223,761,200 insurance money (i.e., KRW 85,693,430 to the heir of the network C’s KRW 100,00,00,000 to the heir of the deceased B) as the insurance money of the instant accident ( KRW 880,00,000 for the repair cost of KRW 37,187,770).

(A) No. 3. 2. The allegations of the Parties

A. Since the damage of the instant accident was increased due to the defect in the installation and management of the instant protective fence by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff, who acquired the damage claim by subrogation of the insurer by paying the damages to the victims, with the amount equivalent to 50% of the Defendant’s contribution ratio, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the driver's breach of duty of safe driving, and there is no defect in the protection fence of this case installed and managed by the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Defect in the installation and management of the protection fence of this case and defect in the construction or management of the public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act 1 of the defendant's liability for damages is not safe.