1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is the manager of two-lanes at the entrance of the Bong-gun, Bupyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Pyeong-do (hereinafter “instant road”).

B. B around 00:00 on January 10, 2012, when driving the instant vehicle on the instant road, there was an accident involving the said vehicle’s front-down (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the collision of the students who installed at the entrance of the said harbor, as described in the attached Form, while driving the instant vehicle on the instant road.

C, who was on the top of the above vehicle, died.

C. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 52,000,000 under the pretext of agreement to the bereaved family members of C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, 11, and 12 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the crossing width of the two facilities is not the same as that of the general road section and the bridge section is connected, and the entrance of the bridge is installed at the entrance of the bridge, and thus, the risk of safety accidents is high. As such, the instant accident site is to install a sufficient transition section and prevent direct collision with the lighting poles, which is a protective fence, along with a bridge rail, on the bridge rail, to prevent direct collision with the lighting poles, and install a watch absorbing facility, such as a rainwater marking, or install a

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who neglected such protective measures, is liable for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and it is reasonable to view that the scope of liability exceeds 30% of the total amount of damages.

The plaintiff has a duty to claim compensation for the amount of KRW 52,00,000 as insurance money because the plaintiff jointly exempted the defendant by paying KRW 52,00.

B. The facts that the instant accident does not have shock absorption facilities and test guidance facilities at the instant accident site, and that the bridge rail is not connected, there is no dispute between the parties.

3.2