beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the possession manager of the national highways No. 2 on the south coast of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant road”).
B. On March 3, 2015, at around 11:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the instant road near the Jinbuk tunnel, proceeded along the two-lanes of the two-lane speed from the surface of the Jinbuk tunnel to the surface of the Jinbuk tunnel, while changing the vehicle to the two-lanes, the part of the back part on the left side of the Non-Party C Driving Vehicle C (hereinafter “victim”) driven along the two-lanes in the front direction of the Plaintiff vehicle was shocked with the front direction of the Plaintiff’s right side.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
By April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 12,910,910 to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and damaged vehicle.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was at the point of the instant accident and caused the instant accident while changing the stone with the stone with the stone (the stone with the stone with the 7 photograph of the evidence No. 11, hereinafter “the stone with the stone”) which was far away from the one-lane surface, in order to avoid the stone (the stone with the stone with the 7 photograph of the evidence No. 11). Thus, the Defendant breached the above duty of care by failing to remove the stone without removing, i.e.,, a person in possession of the instant road, as a manager of the instant road, and neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident from spreading.
The accident of this case is caused by the defendant's foregoing defects in road management and the negligence in driving the plaintiff's vehicle, and it is reasonable to view the ratio of responsibility between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's 40:60, and the defendant paid to the plaintiff.