1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B ASEAN vehicles owned by it (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the person responsible for the maintenance and management of the road at the location where the traffic accident described in the following sub-paragraph (b) occurred.

B. At around 21:25 on December 24, 2015, C, while driving the instant vehicle and driving it at the entrance of the front school located in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-gun, Sinsan-gun (hereinafter “instant road”), collisioned with the unit of the guard for India, which was installed on the said bridge, while driving it at the entrance of the front school located in the Sinsan-gun, Sinsan-do.

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

On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, paid KRW 1,210,000 as repair cost of the instant vehicle, and KRW 62,297,30 as repair cost of the instant vehicle to A on February 17, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a two-lane from each other along which the instant road runs along high speed. The instant road is a section set up between India and the road to narrow the roadway. The left side of the road is formed, and the vehicle protruding to the left side is a part of the instant road, and there is a high risk of an accident due to the collision on the part of the guard. As such, the Defendant, the manager, should have installed safety facilities, such as shock absorbing facilities, safety signs, light lights, safety reflects, etc., on the part of the guard.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not install shock and safety facilities on the instant road, which led to the occurrence of the instant accident and the damages therefrom.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages to victims of the accident of this case pursuant to Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, and the defendant's fault ratio in the accident of this case constitutes 30%, and the plaintiff is the victims.