1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the BM5 car owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. A around 03:30 on June 27, 2010, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the road bended in the direction of the D’E Hospital located in Yangsan City, along with two-lanes in front of the D’E Hospital, from Busan to the stoneside, a driver left the two-lane to the driver’s attention, and the driver’s faulted the part of the D’s watch installed on the right side of the road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the instant accident, F was killed at the site of F, G who was accompanied by the Plaintiff and C who was the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed.

The Plaintiff paid to G KRW 19,649,730 as agreed money and treatment expenses, KRW 30,100,00 as agreed money, KRW 6,950,00 as repair expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 56,69,730 as agreed money and treatment expenses.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1-1-2-3, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 to 6-8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant road accident occurred is a section where the Defendant, the management authority, opened a separate access road for the entry of the vehicle into the “E Hospital” and installed a temporary park for the purpose of protecting the vehicle at the boundary of the said road, and thus, a road with a high risk of directly shocking with the drown-day unit if vehicles deviate from the road. As such, the Defendant neglected the shock absorption facilities, etc. without installing lighting facilities, even though the width and type of the road are rapidly changing, in violation of Article 38(1) of the Rules on Standards for Road Structures and Facilities (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), and the installation standards for road safety facilities and management guidelines, and accordingly, the Defendant’s fault ratio in the instant accident is 10%.

Therefore, the Defendant’s 5,69,970 won to the Plaintiff.