1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. The reasons why the court in the first instance judgment should explain this case are as follows: each of the 2nd, 6, and 5th, 5th, and 15 of the 2nd, 3nd, 4th, and 6th of the 15th, "the 2014th," respectively, shall be dismissed as "the 30th, December 301, 201," and each of the 3nd, 4th, and 6th, "the former Road Act (the partial amendment by Act No. 10382, July 23, 2010; hereinafter "former Road Act") "the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 2011; hereinafter "former Road Act") shall be dismissed as "the fine for negligence and fine for negligence" of the 4th, and the main sentence of Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is for the reason that the part of the first instance judgment shall be cited as it.

2. It is difficult to deem that the execution of the instant disposition in suspension of execution is urgently needed to prevent irrecoverable damage to the Plaintiff, and otherwise, it is difficult to deem that the suspension of execution may have a significant impact on the public welfare. Thus, the execution of the instant disposition shall be suspended ex officio until the judgment in this case

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of its reasoning. The " January 8, 2013" in the disposition of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.