구상금
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) around 15:05 on May 15, 2012, when the Plaintiff’s insured was driving a vehicle A, which is an insured vehicle, and was entering the second freedom of Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, the driver died, and the Plaintiff’s bereaved family paid KRW 97,259,170 to the deceased’s death insurance amount, due to the shock of the starting point of the protection fence installed on the left side of the road.
(2) The above accident was caused by the failure to do so in the lower part of the protective fence that was sufficient for the above deceased, and the damage was extended. The Defendant, the managing body of the protective fence, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to 30% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff with the amount of indemnity.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the protective fence, which is a structure related to the instant accident.
In order to determine whether a road, which is an ordinary structure, has a defect, it shall be specifically determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location of the road, road structure, traffic volume, traffic condition in the event of an accident, etc., such as its original purpose of use, and the location and shape of physical defect. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as having any defect. Furthermore, according to the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the road sign is installed in front of the protective fence in which the accident in this case occurred, and there is a shock absorbing device in front of the shock, and the defendant is judged to have been equipped with a shock absorbing facility at the beginning point of the protective fence in relation to the road in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case, based on the premise that there is any defect in the protective fence, which is the
2. Conclusion.