beta
Text
1. According to the Plaintiff’s expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings, either written in Gap evidence 1 to 9, 23, 24 to 31 (including the branches number with which each number is attached; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images:
The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with A on January 8, 2011 with respect to the B A418D No.2 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. At around 04:40 on January 7, 2012, A driven the instant vehicle, and driven the front road of the Bridge in front of the Camamamban-gun, Yong-gun, Yongnam-gun along the one-lane map from the front right side of the instant vehicle, and used the guard fence installed on the bridge instead of the front part of the instant vehicle, and fell into a river with five meters below the upper right side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). A caused an accident (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant accident”).
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 219,805,400 insurance money to A by October 19, 2012 based on the automobile injury security of the said insurance contract.
The Defendant is a local government that has installed and operates bridge instead of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as the “instant bridge”).
2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is responsible for the preservation and management of the bridge of this case, and ① installed a protection fence in violation of the installation regulations of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, despite the fact that the construction of the bridge of this case should be installed and installed in violation of the installation regulations of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and ② it can be predicted that the school nameer of the bridge of this case protruding on the roadway and causing serious damage to the vehicle due to collision with the vehicle, so the protection fence of the bridge of this case should be installed immediately before the bridge of this case and the defect in the installation and management of the bridge of the defendant of this case caused the accident of this case.