1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. D, around 17:52 on December 12, 2014, driving a new option engine car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) and making a left-hand turn to the left-hand side of the same Eup, Cheongwon-gun Kim Jong-gun, Gangwon-do, Kim Jong-gun, who left the road in front of the agricultural warehouse, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Kim Jong-gun, and went to the right-hand turn to the right-hand turn to the right-hand side of the same Eup (hereinafter referred to as “the road of this case”). Around 17:52, 2014, while escaping from the road in front of the agricultural warehouse of Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, Kim Jong-do

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A’s spouse, Plaintiff B, and C are D’s successors, and the Defendant is the building manager of the instant road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Defendant, as the managing body of the instant road, neglected to remove snow on the instant road while neglecting to perform the snow work, and thereby, caused the instant accident by extinguishing the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the ice road.

(2) The instant accident site is likely to cause a serious accident due to a drainage of 2.5 meters in depth on the side of the road. As such, the Defendant need to install a protective fence so that vehicles or pedestrians can not be omitted, but did not install a protective fence.

(3) Therefore, the defendant shall be liable for damages caused by defects in the construction and management of the road of this case as the construction and management manager of the road of this case.

Considering the specific amount of damages, funeral expenses, which are property damage, are KRW 8,668,60,000, KRW D50 million, Plaintiff A10,000, KRW 2 million, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively.

On the other hand, the accident of this case is 50% of the negligence of D, which is concurrent between the negligence of D driving the plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the defendant.