1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is a manager who is entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to maintain and repair the railroad facilities pursuant to Article 38 of the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and is in charge of maintaining and repairing the roads where

B. On May 7, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed the road surface at approximately 80-100cm in width, approximately 3-5cm in depth, while driving along four lanes near the five dub road (hereinafter “instant road”) as of May 7, 2017, and the part projected on the road surface of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at approximately 80-100cm in width, approximately 3-5cm in width, and damaged the Plaintiff’s shoulder, wheel, etc. in front of the left side of the vehicle.

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

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,970,000, excluding KRW 500,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, based on the said car insurance contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to negligence by the Defendant, who is the manager of the instant road, due to neglecting the duty to maintain and manage the instant road, and thus failed to prevent an accident due to the Art Hall of this case. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 3,970,000 to the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to claim damages by subrogation from the insurer.

B. It is difficult to view the Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Art Hall of this case, and the Defendant is responsible as the management authority for the maintenance and repair of the instant road, such as faithfully performing the maintenance and repair of the instant road. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there was a defect in the installation and preservation of the instant road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a