1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s automobile B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobile”). The Defendant is the construction manager of the national highway No. 39 (hereinafter “instant road”).

B. Around 19:00 on October 3, 201, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into an open area along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the road of this case, C was under way in the open area along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the road of this case, and then leaving the lane to the right-hand side by driving-based care in the middle of the Western playground located in Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and left the intersection to the right-hand side of the road (hereinafter “instant protective fence”), and the said part was placed on the lower side of the bar dradra, which was installed on the right-hand side of the road (hereinafter “instant protective fence”), and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle died, while getting off the Plaintiff’s vehicle, D, E, F, and G suffered respective injuries.

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

On the other hand, on the right side of the point of the accident of this case, the side road of this case is set up between the road of this case, from the beginning point of the above regrative length to the right side of the road of this case. The protection fence of this case is set up on the left side of the above regrative group and on the right side of the road of this case.

By February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the victims totaling KRW 70,517,810 as insurance money.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, Gap's statements, 1 through 7, 9 through 12, 14, 15, Eul's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident point of this case is the exit point where the connecting road is installed, and the protection fence of this case is installed at the center of the quarter point, and since the vehicle deviating from the normal route is highly likely to greatly increase damage due to the collision with the above protection fence part, the defendant installed the shock absorption facility in front of the part.