1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A concerning B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the construction and manager of 45 national highways located in Namyang-si C(D).

B. On April 3, 2015, at around 00:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the falling rocks located far away from the above road, following the national highways of the Southern-si. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged, and E, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered from the injury of acute and scarcitys and scarcitys.

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

With respect to the instant accident, from April 7, 2015 to May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,686,340 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 652,840 in the treatment cost of E and the amount agreed upon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 3 and video, fact-finding with the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. "Defect in the construction and management of a public structure" in Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure built for the public purpose fails to have ordinary safety requirements according to its use. In the construction and management of the public structure, defects in the construction or management of the public structure cannot be deemed to be defects in the construction or management of the public structure on the ground that the construction or management of the public structure does not have high level of safety requirements to the extent that the construction or management of the public structure is always maintained. The degree of the duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer or manager of the public structure is to

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da54998 delivered on April 25, 2000, etc.). The following circumstances, i.e., the road of this case, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health team, the above basic facts, and the evidence as mentioned above, are installed in the opposite part of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.