1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and above.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2013, around 04:53, when driving a truck with 4.5 tons on April 5, 2013, A brought a three-lane distance from the three-lane distance in front of C in Yangsan City to the left left at the seat of the small-lane in the middle of the two-lane of the two-lanes from the jurisdiction of the Sinsan University, the head part of D walking at the edge of the one-lane in the same direction (hereinafter “instant road”) was shocked to the right-hand side of the said truck (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and D suffered injury, such as blood transfusion, etc. due to the instant accident.

B. Although approximately 1.5 meters of the instant road was installed on the instant road, there was a wide range of news reports, the entire news report was obstructed by removing signboards, facilities, and facilities.

C. The Plaintiff, which entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A on the truck, paid KRW 24,209,570 to D as agreed money, hospital treatment expenses, etc. from August 30, 2013 to December 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the road of this case is installed in a two-lane or one-lane structure in the vicinity of the Corporation, and large-scale cargo vehicles entering the Corporation frequently pass through the Corporation. Thus, the defendant responsible for maintaining and managing the road of this case is obligated to install a sidewalk for pedestrians and take safety measures to ensure normal passage.

However, the neighboring sidewalk of the road of this case was in a state where normal traffic was impossible because it was prevented by removing signboards and facilities as seen earlier.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case conflicts between the negligence of the driver A who neglected the duty of care at the time of Jeonju and the negligence of the defendant who neglected the duty of maintenance and management of the road adjacent to the road of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable for joint tort with A pursuant to Article 5 of the State Compensation Act.