1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty B’s marina car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s car”).

B. B, around 20:30 on October 3, 2016, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the two-lanes of the two-lane road in the Jeoncheon-si, Ycheon-si, the two-lanes of the two-lane road are in line;

In this direction, the network D unclaimed from the right side of the course to the left side of the above vehicle was shocked into the right side of the above vehicle, and on October 4, 2016, the deceased died due to brain damage during treatment at E Hospital.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case")

The Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 2,901,910 on November 28, 2016 to the deceased’s medical expenses, KRW 128,79,910 on October 31, 2016, KRW 125,00,000 on the deceased’s compensation for damages, and KRW 128,79,910 on January 2, 2017 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (= KRW 2,901, KRW 125,00,000 on the deceased’s compensation for damages).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, each of the statements (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The point where the Plaintiff alleged that the instant accident occurred is a place where pedestrians’ passage is frequent, such as a five-way road along which the five-way road is adjacent, a vehicle traffic is frequent, and a neighboring commercial building, house, etc. is adjacent thereto.

In light of the fact that a pedestrian traffic accident occurred three times prior to the accident in this case, and there was frequent civil petition that wants to install a crosswalk, the police voluntarily reported the installation of the crosswalk through the media to increase pedestrian right, and the fact that the 2-3 months have passed after the accident in this case, and the crosswalk was installed at the accident point, the accident point in this case shall be deemed to be "the place where the installation of the crosswalk was especially required for the safety or passage of pedestrians" as stipulated in Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

(see the following photographs) Nevertheless, the defendant did not install a crosswalk, and accordingly, he was the driver B.