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. The plaintiff is a person who leases a vehicle A (hereinafter in this case) owned by him to (Joint Lighting) and the defendant is a manager of the 88 Expressway in which the following accidents occur.

On September 17, 2012, when the instant vehicle was driven on the Highway at around 13:00, the instant vehicle covered the said vehicle due to a landslide due to a heavy storm, which was caused by a storm, and the instant vehicle covered the said vehicle. The instant vehicle was transferred to the left side of the road and flooded (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendant’s assertion was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damages as follows.

The Plaintiff suffered damages in total of KRW 18,442,603, such as the vehicle value, rental loss, consumption tax, etc., and towing cost, due to the instant accident.

The defendant shall be liable for damages to the plaintiff as an occupant of a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act.

(1) When the Defendant opens an expressway in a mountainous district, the Defendant has a duty to install a retaining wall and other facilities in an isolated mountainous district so that earth and sand in an isolated mountainous district may not be pushed down on a road, and to perform safety inspection and reinforcement works so as not to collapse down on a mountain site, such as installing a drainage channel by surveying vulnerable areas.

Nevertheless, there was a defect in the road of this case due to negligence that the defendant neglected the above duty and caused the accident of this case.

Shebly, even if it was a landslide started in the top part of the area above the expressway, the accident site of this case is the place where the defendant is working on the expressway extension, and the defendant was negligent in not installing a sn beam on the sn beam inside the sn beam and preventing the damage from being prevented or expanding.

B. (i) Judgment on (ii) argument.