1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 21, 2013, Nonparty A driven a B car (hereinafter “accidentd vehicle”) around 12:40, and driven a road in the vicinity of the Busan metropolitan transportation Daegu, and collisioned with the Oba in the opposite lane, which was the center line. Accordingly, Nonparty A, who is a passenger of the Obaba, was damaged by the Oba, due to the injury of C, and D, who was the passenger of the Obaba, caused the damage to the said Oba.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident of this case, paid KRW 42,593,550, including medical expenses, to the passenger of Oralba, KRW 695,00, and KRW 27,970,840 including medical expenses, and KRW 71,259,390 in total, to D.

C. The Defendant is the person who occupies and manages the road at the location of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant road”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant does not remove the existing side display line 2.5 meters away from the new side display line on the road of this case on the road of this case, and thus, double side display line is installed with double side display line, even though the center line is almost crossed off, it makes new side display line confused with the center line of the road of this case by failing to repair it. The danger of driving by neglecting regular illegal parking vehicles on the road of this case was aggravated.

Since the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the road management as above and the defendant's liability ratio is 40%, the defendant is obligated to pay 28,503,756 won to the plaintiff, equivalent to 40% of the compensation paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. The installation and management of the center line and surface display, etc. of the instant road by the Defendant is not the Defendant but the Busan Metropolitan City. Since the Defendant did not neglect the illegal parking vehicles of the instant road, the instant accident pertains to the Defendant.