1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the E Camp motor vehicle, and the Defendant is a local government that manages the scam-distance Do road (hereinafter “instant road”) one-way protein, protein, protein, protein, protein, protein, and protein.

The insurance contract of this case includes a special contract for automobile injury, which requires the payment of insurance money within the limit of KRW 100 million, where the insured dies of an accident of automobile insured.

B. Around 00:50 on June 30, 2017, the networkF driven the above vehicle and driven to port the road of this case toward the left sloping surface from the shocking bank, and went away from the road and died by shocking the signal signal light, etc. installed on the right side of the traffic island.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On July 20, 2017, G and J, the heir of the deceased F, transferred to the Plaintiff the claim against KRW 100 million out of the damage claim (comforcing materials, lost profit amount, funeral expenses) that the said heir owed to the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of claim in this case”), and on the following day, the Plaintiff paid to the said heir KRW 100 million as the death insurance amount under the special agreement on the injury of the motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 8 through 11, 20-2, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the following: (a) the instant road falls short of the flat radius prescribed by the Rules on the Standards for Road Structures and Facilities; (b) the safety signs were not properly installed; (c) the instant road was installed in the valley, which is not the straight line; (d) the instant road was installed in the valley, which is not the straight line; and (e) the structure was not equipped with ordinary safety due to the reverse slope; and (e) the easingr was not installed in order to reduce the escape risk

The defect in the road of this case was caused by the accident of this case, and even when considering the fault of the deceased, the defendant's responsibility is 20%, so the defendant is liable.