1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings, either in Gap evidence 1 to 5 or in Gap evidence 29 (including each number):

C On February 12, 2015, at around 07:09, while driving a DNA-learning passenger vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident vehicle”) with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.141% (hereinafter “the instant accident vehicle”), and driving a four-lane near Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si at 48, Kimpo-si, one-lane in the middle of the four-lane, which is the starting part of the central separation zone installed on the said road (hereinafter “central separation zone of this case”) at the air level in Seoul. On February 12, 2015, C died due to the said accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Plaintiff A’s father, Plaintiff B’s mother, and C’s property were jointly inherited due to the death of C.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The point where the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred is the point where the instant accident enters into the middle line road (three-lanes in Seoul, and four-lanes in reinforcement) and the central separation unit starts at the center of the road. The Defendant, as a construction manager and manager of the said road and its appurtenances, was obligated to install an appropriate shock absorption facility in accordance with the relevant provisions, and to install safety facilities, such as the starting point of the central separation zone, such as the starting point of the road, in spite of the duty to install the safety absorption facility in the central separation zone, and to install the safety facilities, such as the starting point of the central separation zone. Since the Defendant’s negligence in the construction and management of the said road concurrently causes the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damages, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs, the heir of C, pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act

B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a violation of C’s duty of drinking driving and front-time drinking, and the central separation zone established at the road where the instant accident occurred and at the center of the road.