beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,072,282 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 8, 2015 to October 20, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty A as the insured with respect to B Poter II Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. On February 21, 2015, at around 15:28, C, driving the instant vehicle, resulting in a traffic accident that conflicts with D-cars located on the center of the road (hereinafter referred to as “instant facility”) by destroying plastic PEs installed on the center of the road (hereinafter referred to as “instant facility”; the said facilities are connected with each other; and the road is not fixed on the road surface) beyond the direction to prevent the collision of D-cars that conflict with the D-cars located on the opposite direction, while driving along the bridge (17 national highways; hereinafter referred to as “instant road”) along the new shot-gu new shot-gu shot-gu shot-sloping-sloping-gu’s new shot-sloping-sloping-sloping-sloping-gu’s new shotning-sloping-sloping-sloping-sloping-sloping-sloping-
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The point at which the above accident occurred (hereinafter referred to as the “accident point”) is two-lanes with the speed of 70 km at the time, which is the speed of 70 km (four-lanes), and is being faced with the direction of the running of the instant vehicle.
The driving speed of the instant vehicle immediately before the accident is 61 to 70km.
With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,361,410 in total to C, A, and the E, F, etc. boarding the instant vehicle, for medical expenses, vehicle repair expenses, and agreed fees, etc. by October 7, 2015.
E. The Defendant is the managing body of the instant road pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Road Act.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 9 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The Defendant did not install a protective fence at the center line of the instant accident site in accordance with the “Road Safety Facilities Installation and Management Guidelines”.