The defendant shall pay 14,315,044 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 28, 2015 to June 8, 2016, and the next day.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A and C1 ton (hereinafter referred to as “accident vehicle”), and the Defendant is the manager of the road in which the following accidents have occurred:

On July 18, 2014, Nonparty B driven an accident vehicle around 12:15 on July 18, 2014, and proceeded with two-lanes in front of the Geumsan-ri-si, Geumsan-si, Geumsan-si, in one-lanes, from Asan to the budget direction, and led to the collision of the central separation unit located on the left side of the progress direction at the front side of the accident vehicle, and Nonparty B died on July 31, 2014, and suffered injury to his/her passenger C.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). From July 28, 2014 to January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 143,150,440 in total with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon with B and C during the period from July 28, 2014.

The intensity of the accident site of this case is as shown in the attached Form No. 1, and the traffic signal and traffic signs are installed in the distance of 42m from the point at which the intersection of the direction is completed to the central separation zone, the traffic signal and the traffic signs are above, and the shock absorption tank (the safety product that did not conduct the test of actual collision does not fall under the 's shock absorption facility' as follows) and the starting salary are installed in front of the central separation zone.

In the accident site of this case, the accident vehicle does not show an urgent trace.

[Grounds for recognition] The Defendant’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings in violation of relevant guidelines. The Defendant did not install in advance traffic safety signs notifying the beginning of the Central Separation Zone, or the test part indicating yellow brooms at intervals of about 2 meters, and did not properly carry out color to enhance the sight at the Central Separation Zone, and ② was negligent in installing shock absorption facilities before the Central Separation Zone, and thus, the Defendant was the Defendant’s insurance proceeds