1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's selective claims added in the trial are dismissed.

3. Appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Unsatisfy" of Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court in Part 9 of the third instance court; "Misfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfy" is added to "Misfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfy," "Misfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfy"; "Misfyfyfyfyfyfy" was not "Misfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfy"; "Misfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfyfy

2. Determination as to the selective claims added in the trial

A. Since a contract to use an expressway was concluded between A and the defendant, who is the driver of the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to provide the safe road necessary for the owner of the expressway.

Therefore, the Defendant failed to perform its duty under the above service contract, such as the construction of the part of the road installed and managed by the Defendant, such as insufficient drainage facilities and the connection between the concrete packaging unit and the asphalt packing unit, and due to this, A’s failure to perform its duty under the above service contract. As a result, the instant accident occurred due to the occurrence of the water suspension phenomenon in the instant road at the time of running the instant road.

Therefore, the defendant shall be liable for damages incurred to A due to the instant accident under the above service contract, and the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim damages as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if a contract for the use of an expressway was concluded between A and the Defendant, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s error in the construction and management of the instant road as seen earlier.