1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff A driven a bicycle on or around 07:30, while driving the G road in Daegu Dong-gu F, Daegu-gu, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as double alleys, etc. due to an accident that led to a shock of head, etc. on the roadway, etc. on the left side while driving the G road in the Gyeongbuk-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, from the boundary of the illegal bank.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident” and the road in which the accident occurred is referred to as the “road of this case”). B.

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff C and D are the children of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 5-1 to 12, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the accident of this case occurred when the bicycle front wheels, which the plaintiff A was on the part of the part of the part of the concrete package section due to the edge of the part of the asphalt package of the road of this case, was absent. The defendant managing the road of this case was negligent in maintaining and managing the road of this case due to the negligence of neglecting his duty to safely maintain and manage the road of this case, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs A and their families, who are the victims of the accident of this case.

B. 1) First of all, we examine whether the instant accident occurred due to the negligence on the road of this case. The evidence No. 29, which seems to conform to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, is difficult to believe it as follows (However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence on the road of this case, only the remaining evidence presented by the Plaintiff, by explaining the rules of natural sports, including the epidemian movement, and is insufficient to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence on the road of this case.