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

B On December 19, 2015, when driving the above vehicle at around 00:00,00 and driving the D Village in order to drive it, the vehicle is dissatisfed, and the vehicle is damaged by the vehicle-protection fence installed on the side of the road, and the vehicle is cut down on the side below, and the vehicle is damaged by himself.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 89,274,300 in total as insurance money to B.

【In the absence of any dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9】

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the Defendant’s leaving the ice ice on the road without conducting snow removal work, and the vehicle protection fence was installed to be unable to perform the main functions, and the damage was aggravated due to the vehicle’s collision and leaving the road outside the road.

The defendant is obligated to compensate for damages due to defects in the construction and preservation of roads, who manage the road of this case and the protective fences of vehicles.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is seeking payment of KRW 26,782,290, which is equivalent to 30% of the insurance money paid by the defendant on behalf of the defendant as the insurer B.

3. According to the respective statements and the entire purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Nos. 1 to 10 of the board Nos. B, the road and the vehicle protection fence of this case seems to have been managed and installed without any violation of the relevant legal standards.

It is difficult to recognize that only the images of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 7 submitted by the plaintiff caused or expanded damage to Eul's traffic accidents due to any defect in the construction and maintenance of the road or the vehicle protection fence of this case.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.