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 insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the construction and manager of the instant national highways, which are two-lanes prior to the D plant located in Scheon-si C (hereinafter “instant roads”).

B. At around 14:20 on February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lanes of the instant road, which led to the start part of the protective fence installed on the right side of the road, due to the string of the road. The strings of the protective fence led to the string of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front side and the interior, and the strings of the said vehicle led to the death of F, who was on board the said vehicle, due to the occurrence of a fire that is unknown on the ground of the string of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the occurrence of an accident involving A and G injury (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. From February 17, 2014 to October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid totaling KRW 77,465,500 for the medical expenses and agreements of the said victims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the "Management Guidelines for Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities" of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs stipulates that the height of the protection fence from the ground to 100cm from the ground, and the lower end to 46cm from the lower end of the road, the protection fence of the road of this case is installed higher than the above provision at a height of 105cm and height of 75cm at the lower end, and there are many openings for access to adjacent farming roads, which led to the Plaintiff's shocking of the protection fence. Since the defects in the construction and management of the protection fence of this case were caused by the accident of this case and the expansion of damages, the Defendant bears the responsibility for public structures under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act as the construction manager of the road of this case, and subrogated the victims' right to claim damages pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.