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.

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning for this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court cites it in accordance with the main text of Article 420

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the road of this case was unable to ensure the safety of the road of this case in proportion to the danger. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the road of this case was in ice at the time of the accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if there was a ice on the road of this case at the time of the accident, there is no evidence to acknowledge the occurrence of similar traffic accidents at the location of the accident prior to the accident. The road of this case is a section where there is no obstacle to securing the view. The river of this case is a natural phenomenon, which makes it difficult to predict the degree or time of the risk of harming the road traffic safety, and it is impossible for a road manager to demand a road manager to remove snow, ice, and snow so it is impossible for the road manager to demand a complete removal of snow, ice, and snow melting water from the road of this case. Thus, even if there was a defect in the road of this case in the road of this case, the safety of road traffic of this case can not be seen due to the Plaintiff’s construction and management of this case.