1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. At around 14:30 on April 1, 2019, C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) moved to a two-lane of the gold board 92-16 Central Expressway 300.2 km (Sacheon) from the front side of the vehicle while changing to a one-lane, the vehicle started by the side of the driver’s seat of the vehicle, shocking the two-lane of the bridge with the front side of the auxiliary seat. Accordingly, as the vehicle is separated from the front side of the vehicle and the vehicle loaded, the front side of the vehicle on which the deceased was on board was killed by falling under the front side of the bridge.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiffs, the parents of the deceased, jointly inherited the deceased's property.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, video of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The place where the accident occurred in this case is the road structure that does not match the crossing width of the two facilities at the location where the general road section and the bridge section are connected, and the bridge width is narrow, and thus, the defendant who manages the road in this case should have installed safety facilities in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. However, the defendant neglected to install the safety facilities. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, for the damages caused by the accident in this case. 2) The defendant's assertion place where the accident in this case occurred is a road structure that does not completely impede the securing of the street in front, and there is no element that obstructs the driving of the vehicle in particular every week.

Ultimately, since the accident of this case occurred due to the deceased's violation of his duty of safe driving, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

B. The construction and management of a road by the relevant legal doctrine does not have a high level of safety to the extent that the full state of road maintenance is always maintained.