On December 13, 2014, at around 01:20, the network A (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) driven a B gallon vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) and driven the B gallon road from the frontbuk-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant bridge”) to the wing-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant bridge”) on the ground of the entrance of the port station located at the cracking station, and died by falling into a river and falling into a river after getting the center of the galking, getting off the snow, shocking the right-hand rail.

(A) Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the foregoing accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle (Evidence No. 5-2), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 186,415,400 to the deceased’s bereaved family members by December 17, 2014 based on the category of the automobile accident security insurance as to the said insurance.

(A) Evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3). The bridge of this case is an order issued by the Nansan Regional Land Management Office, which was completed on August 31, 1996, and its management authority is the defendant.

(No. 1 and No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2 of the Act). In addition to the above, there is no dispute, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that liability for damages was established for the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant did not install a vehicle protection fence on the instant bridge under the Act on the Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities.

This is a defect in the construction, preservation, and management of public structures.

The instant bridge is not a drainage, and snow melted with water. At the time of the instant accident, it was found that the instant bridge was dried at the temperature below the field.

As can be seen, the failure to properly take measures to prevent the collapse of the bridge even when the drainage of the instant bridge was poor constitutes defects in the construction, preservation, and management of public structures.

Since the deceased died due to the defect in the construction, management, and preservation of the bridge of this case, the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff acting in subrogation of the deceased's damage compensation liability.

The Defendant Bridge was installed according to the standards set by law at the time of construction.