A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. At around 13:01 on May 3, 201, 201, B: (a) operated to move the instant vehicle which was parked or stopped in front of the D cafeteria located in Yong-si (hereinafter “instant water tank”) to another place; (b) turned the vehicle into the sea due to the care of the driver; and (c) fell into the sea with the care of the driver.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) C.

On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the bereaved family members of B KRW 116,554,880 in total in accordance with the instant insurance contract. D.

Pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Harbor Act, Article 92(1) of the Harbor Act, Article 91(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, Article 91(1)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, Article 91(1)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, and attached Table 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, the Defendant was delegated by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries to maintain and manage harbor facilities within the Tong-gu port of local management, and the water culture of this case

【Grounds for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s entries, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not install a sufficient screen at the end abutting on the sea of the waterwal of this case, and did not install entry prohibition facilities or risk guide signs, etc. to prevent entry into the above waterwal, which are dangerous harbor facilities, and caused the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay 40% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff who exercises the right of subrogation against the insurer. 2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the waterwal of this case illegally buried and installed public waters at the port price.