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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s automobile B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobile”), and the Defendant is the manager of the coast guard highway.

B. On October 13, 2018, around 17:00 on October 13, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle damaged the damaged vehicle due to the flashing of the flashed vehicle on C (hereinafter “victimed vehicle”) that passed by the wind, which was far away from the front line, without avoiding the typing light.

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

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2780,000 to D, the owner of the damaged vehicle, etc. as repair expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, video, and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s road management defect, a road manager at the location of the accident.

Therefore, as an insurance company of the sea, the plaintiff who paid the repair cost, etc. to the owner of the damaged vehicle can claim a reimbursement against the defendant who is the above road manager.

B. After the construction of a road, if a traffic safety defect which is the original purpose of the road is caused by an act of a third party after the construction of the road, the preservation defect of the road can not be recognized only with such a defect, and even if the road can be restored to its original state by taking into account all the circumstances such as the structure, location, environment and current use of the road in question, the existence or absence of the defect must be determined by examining individually and specifically whether or not the defect has been neglected. In the case where, from the objective perspective of the safety defect of the road, the possession and management defect of the road can not be found in the situation where the possession and management

Supreme Court Decision 97Da3194 delivered on April 22, 1997, and September 14, 1992