1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the insurance period from June 21, 2012 to June 21, 2013 with respect to B B B B-in vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the construction manager of national highways 38 lines roads (hereinafter “instant roads”).

B. On September 28, 2012, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the instant road at a speed of about 72 km at a speed of about a speed of 72 km from the cross-section of the Do-Eup at the time of March 28, 2012, A, as shown in the attached traffic accident report, lost balance immediately after getting out of the Do-hobro, and shocked the Do-ho, which was set up on the opposite lane beyond the central line, and fell down on the slope below the road over the direction of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was disseminated, and A suffered injury, such as an acute bladrosis and blood transfusion.

C. By November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,510,000,000 as medical expenses, damages, KRW 150,00 as damages, and KRW 12,510,00 as total damages for vehicle damage, respectively. After returning the purchase price for remainder KRW 1,20,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 161,310,000 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is the installer and manager of the road of this case, who is a dangerous section, did not install a steel protection fence at the location of the accident of this case, but did not do so.

Even if the level of rating has been strengthened, it has been negligent in neglecting the duty to install a dial length extension lecture and reinforcement board in order to secure the support power of the diverse-day.

The accident in this case conflicts with the defect in the construction and management of the public structure of the defendant in addition to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.