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 a person who concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty A as the insured for the B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”), and the Defendant is a person who manages the traffic signal, etc. in front of the Samcheon-dong, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seoul High School in Young-si.

B. At around 11:00 on June 21, 2016, the Seocho Police Station in charge of the above signal was changed to a signal system with a long range of signals in the direction of the water area administration for the prevention of the sticking to the intersection, and then changed to a signal system with a long range of signals in the direction of the horizontal distance of the water area administration.

C. At around 17:45 on June 21, 2016, A changed the signal, etc. on the direction of the wind-dong distance, the right side of which is located at the Hancheon-dong, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-dong, Middle School Intersection, to red signal, and it is in conflict with C driver’s Drade-con vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) that was directly driven in the direction of Suwon-si in accordance with green signal while driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle in the direction of Suwon-do Fluorro mark in the direction of Suwon-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,628,410 in total, including KRW 2,631,20,00 in the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 3,680,00 in the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 2,631,20 in the repair cost of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and video (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the three-distance distance from the literature, fixed and middle school, in which the Plaintiff’s assertion was occurred, the signal of a large path without a separate signal can proceed to the red signal. The Defendant arbitrarily modified the signal system and maintained a green signal in the direction of the wind direction, even though the signal in the direction of the wind direction was red.