1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is as follows.

A road manager prescribed by the Road Act is the road manager with respect to a road where an accident specified in the port (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”).

나. 원고 차량이 2017. 8. 19. 03:05경 서울외곽순환고속도로 서하남IC 2.3km 전 부근을 성남 톨게이트 방면에서 퇴계원 방면으로 주행하던 중, 도로 노면의 움푹 파인 부분(이하 ‘포트홀’이라 한다)으로 인하여 원고 차량의 좌측 앞바퀴 부분이 손상되는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

C. On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 694,300 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case occurred due to the neglect of the road of this case. Since the defendant, who is the manager of the road of this case, was negligent in neglecting the duty of maintenance and management of the road of this case and failed to prevent any accident due to the negligence, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff's automobile repair cost paid to the plaintiff who acquired the right of compensation by subrogation of the insurer as the reimbursement for the damages.

B. There was a series of art negligence on the instant road on the Defendant’s instant road

It is difficult to see that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of this case before or after the accident of this case, and the defendant is not only conducting safety patrols after the accident of this case, but also completely preventing the phenomenon of the art Hall caused by natural disasters. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the accident of this case was defective in the installation and management of the road of this case. Despite the construction of street lamps on the road of this case, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence of the driver of

3. Determination.