1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 18, 2016, at least 01:00 on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for reimbursement equivalent to 30% of the insurance proceeds, by asserting that the Plaintiff paid KRW 202,639,980 of the insurance proceeds in relation to the said accident, the defect of road facilities due to the failure of the Defendant, who installed and installed the road and the facilities attached to the road at the location of the accident, was caused by the accident, without recognizing the fact that the lane decreased by the two lanes while driving the CMF5 car volume in front of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 2nd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 2nd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of vehicle.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the oral argument, i.e., the point of accident: (i) the point of accident was the straight line of the six-way straight line (restricted speed of 60km/h) from the front line at the time, without any limit to the front line; and (ii) there was lighting facilities at the time on the street, etc.; (ii) the Defendant omitted the installation of visible guidance facilities at the point of accident based on the existence of the road lighting facilities in accordance with the “Road Safety Facilities Installation and Management Guidelines” of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is the detailed guidelines in Article 38(1) of the Rules on Road Structure and Facility Standards, pursuant to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is the detailed guidelines in Article 38(1) of the Rules on Road Structures and Facilities; and (iii) considering the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of the vehicle was driven at a speed of 0.213% in the middle line without any other transit vehicles at the heart of the road at the point of accident, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

It is difficult to see that the defect caused the accident in addition to the gross and clear negligence of the deceased A.

Therefore, it goes on a different premise.