beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,431,480 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 4, 2015 to September 27, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Presumed facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an individual automobile insurance contract with C on the instant vehicle owned D (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the maintenance and management manager of the road at the location where the following traffic accident occurred.
B. At around 9:25 on June 24, 2012, C, driving the instant vehicle, and driving the instant vehicle on the border of the 23th National Highway (hereinafter referred to as 80km/h) in the mountainside area in the 23th parallel of the Gongju-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). At the same time, C was suffering from an accident that shocks the front part of the protective fence located at the quarterly point in the Gongju-si branch of the Gongju-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), and C was cut to the right bridge by suffering from the injury, such as a diveter gale, a light flaver, and a light flaver, which was on the instant vehicle, and E was on board the instant vehicle, suffered from the injury of the gale Section 1.
C. The Plaintiff received damages claim (C:89,870,820 won, E: KRW 73,259,430 from C and E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) against the Defendant on June 12, 2015, and C, etc. received damages claim (C: 89,870,820 won, E: 73,259,430 won) from C, etc., and C, etc. notified the Defendant thereof around that time.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 13 evidence, Eul’s 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that there was a defect in the construction or management of public structures in which a traffic safety sign or an obstacle surface sign was not installed at the location of the instant accident, and ② such defect was caused by the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident.
Therefore, the Defendant is liable for 30% of the damages incurred to C, etc., and the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages from C, etc., so the Defendant acquired the right to claim damages from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is from the preparatory document dated March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff 66,515,596.