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.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s alleged road safety facilities installation and management guidelines, a protective fence was not installed in order to prevent escape from the center line of the instant accident site to the opposite direction.

In addition, as the Defendant did not install a restricted speed sign and a dangerous sign, B, while driving at a somewhat rapid speed because it was impossible to know that the instant accident point was an acute hacker section, caused the instant accident by breaking the central line.

There is a proximate causal relationship between the defect of the road of this case and the occurrence of accident of this case and the expansion of damage.

B. (1) there is no evidence to prove that a protective fence should be installed at the center line of the instant accident location.

The plaintiff on September 28, 2017.

In the reference document, it is argued that "in the case of a road that is separated from both directions by means other than the separation zone, a protection fence shall be installed in accordance with the following corresponding provisions in the case of a road that is separated by means other than the separation zone" in the item 3 of the Guidelines for the Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities 2.2.2., however, there is no content as argued by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, considering the circumstances surrounding the instant accident as seen earlier, even if a protective fence was installed or a signboard was installed as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be readily concluded that B caused only the instant accident or any more minor accident.

Sheet Nos. 37, 38, and 39 were written or visually written to the effect that B was unaware of the instant accident location.