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.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the plaintiff on B-owned vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's vehicles"), and the defendant is the management agency managing the border highways.

B. On February 12, 2011, around 01:45, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in Incheon in the direction of Seoul in accordance with the fourth-lane road of the border road located in the Bupyeong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Seogyeong-gu, Incheon, and entering the right-hand lane from the Seocho quarter to the front side of the road, and then, after moving the vehicle to the left side of the road, the Plaintiff was followed by the vehicle while driving the Plaintiff while driving the vehicle, which was trying to enter the border road to the front side of the vehicle while moving to the front side of the vehicle, while moving to the front side of the vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

Until December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid C totaling KRW 19,476,280 as insurance money, in total, KRW 18,161,230, and vehicle repair cost of KRW 1,315,050.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each branch number for which a branch number has been attached), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's allegation point of the accident of this case contributed to the expansion of damages caused by the accident of this case because the defendant who manages the road of this case as the main quarter of the entrance with the connection of the steel structure installed the shock absorption facility, and the defendant who is the managing agency is obliged to install the shock absorption facility more wide than 0.8m of the above structure (2.5m) and to protect the safety of the driver, but only installed the shock absorption facility more than 0.8m of the width and did not install a sufficient shock absorption facility. Since the road of this case, which is the public structure, did not install a proper shock absorption facility, the defendant is liable for damages caused by the defect.