1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy with respect to the deceased A and B B Poter II Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is a local government that manages the said road (hereinafter “instant road”) and its appurtenances in the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seosan-gu.

B. Around 12:20 on May 13, 2014, the instant vehicle driven by the network A was driven by a passenger company company, and was driving along one lane from the two lanes of the instant road in the direction of a carbon bank distance. On the other hand, the instant vehicle was driven by the network A while leaving the lane, and the underground vehicle also felled below the lower level of the underground vehicle after the shocking of the said chemical group and the instant network (hereinafter “instant chemical group,” and “instant network”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. In the instant accident, A, a driver of the driver of the instant vehicle, died, and is proceeding with C driving a one-lane of the Mad Carbon Prevention Lower Limit, and C driving the instant vehicle was suffering from injury, such as catum salt, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment.

The plaintiff from May 30, 2014 to the same year

9.1. During the period of 1. The deceased’s heir representative E paid KRW 3,67,820, KRW 15,740,00, and KRW 3,561,040, and KRW 8,211,860, in total, for insurance proceeds, such as other damaged vehicles, flowers, and rail repair costs, to E, the total sum of KRW 61,180,720, such as the insurance proceeds for self-injury death.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that it did not perform its original role as a protective fence because it did not meet the intensity and height prescribed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s regulations established by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “instant management guidelines”), which were in force at the time, and that it was installed as a protective fence.