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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

A around 15:52 on April 9, 2012, around B B B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) driven the instant vehicle and driven the instant vehicle along the two lanes along the instant two-lanes of the instant vehicle from the franchisium to the franchisium franchisium franchisium 53.6km in the franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchis, and the instant vehicle was separated from the instant vehicle beyond the instant franchisium hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. A and D died due to the instant accident, and E and C suffered each injury.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle during the period including the date and time of the instant accident, and paid KRW 145,759,640 as insurance money to the victims of the instant accident until February 21, 2013.

The defendant is the installer and manager of the road of this case.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1 should be installed and managed so as not to obstruct the function as a protective fence. However, the defendant set up a class lower than the rating to be set up on the road of this case, buried the prop of this case's diversity in an unstable state, and buried the diversity of the diversity, and the structure of the diversity and the beam of this case's diversity.