1. The Plaintiff did not have an obligation to compensate the Defendant for an accident listed in the separate sheet.

1. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant, while driving a SM3 vehicle on March 12:0, 2016, was faced with an accident where the front of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed by an inferior object left on the road while passing a road near the HaJC in the direction of the principal direction of the Dong-dong Highway.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an application for state compensation with the Incheon District Compensation Council, and the above Council recognized the liability due to defects in the construction and management of public structures of the Republic of Korea with respect to the accident of this case and decided to pay the defendant 153,720 won, which is the repair cost of 170,800 won paid by the defendant, in view of the ratio of negligence of the defendant 10%.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of causes for a claim shall be made in detail in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location of the road, structure of the road, traffic volume, traffic conditions in the event of an accident, etc., such as the conditions of the use of the road and the location, shape, etc. of the original purpose of the road. In the event a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, has occurred through an act of a third party after the construction of the road, the preservation defect of the road shall not be recognized merely on the ground that such a defect has a defect if the safety safety in the original purpose of the road has occurred, and the construction and management defect of the road can be restored to the original state by taking into account all all the circumstances such as the structure, location, environment

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da3194 delivered on April 22, 1997, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the Plaintiff’s employees patrol and check the road section 3 and 10 times a day.