1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is as follows.

It is a local government that bears the responsibility for the maintenance and management of cross-sections and signal apparatus near the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Maiollllllll.

B. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in line with the green signal of the signal apparatus installed at the intersection in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, for a traffic accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) that conflicts with C vehicles proceeding on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “the vehicle”).

C. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 280,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and purport of whole pleading

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 7 as to the cause of the claim, the non-party vehicle, which was proceeding in the right direction of the plaintiff vehicle, also in green light, can be acknowledged as the fact of collision between the plaintiff vehicle and the non-party vehicle, even though green signal is displayed on the signal apparatus in the direction of the plaintiff vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

In light of the factual basis, it is reasonable to deem that the instant traffic accident was caused by the malfunction of signal apparatus, and there is no evidence to deem that there was an error by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving normally in accordance with the green signals in the direction of the passage at the intersection where signal apparatus is installed, not complying with the traffic method of intersection or the safety driving duty.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for the maintenance and management of the intersection and signal apparatus of this case, and as the plaintiff who acquired the right to claim damages on behalf of the plaintiff vehicle in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act, 280,000 won and its amount.