1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty B with respect to B’s cargo vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is a local government that manages the road at the location where the following accidents occurred:

B. At around 15:00 on June 19, 2013, A driven the instant vehicle and died after leaving a part of the protective fence installed on the left side of the road at the time of the instant vehicle as the front-hand part of the instant vehicle, where the road without a central line at the right-side of the road was passed from the new third-distance bank to the blue-do road (hereinafter “road at the right-side site”) and the 400-meter radius was passed from the new third-distance bank, while leaving the road to the left-hand side of the road.

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

On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the bereaved family members of A KRW 50 million with the insurance money for a self-physical accident of A, and accepted the 676,000 won from June 28, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 5-1 to 4, 6, and 7-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant installed a protective fence on the road of the accident site of this case by giving rise to the beginning point of the protective fence so that drivers can use the road safely, and install the part at a distance from the roadway, and install a shock absorbing facility on the part of the protective fence, and in the case of a direct collision between the part and the motor vehicle, it did not take safety measures at all despite the fact that such safety measures should not be taken on the outside of the road so that the part can not be excavated and the part can not be excavated.

The above defects in the construction and management of the defendant's protective fence were caused by the occurrence and expansion of the accident of this case, and the defendant's liability ratio in relation to the accident is at least 40%.