1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2015, around 16:00, A driven a B 1 ton truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and driven along a two-lane between four-lanes at the location 103.6km in the area of the Busan Sea and the Southern Highway, and entered the same lane, and received the back portion of C15 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the right side of the C15 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) in the process of collecting falling under the central separation zone.

B. At the time, the truck, which is a work vehicle cleaning the road in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, was in operation on a tent, and the truck, which is a work-protection vehicle, was driven at a similar speed with a distance of 110 meters away later.

Plaintiff

In order to overtake the defendant's vehicle, which is another work-protective vehicle, which was driven by the former, the vehicle has been entering the two-lanes.

C. According to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s management guidelines for road construction sites and transportation, two workplace reserve cars will continue to comply with the work vehicles after moving on an expressway.

작업자동차와 그 뒤의 작업보호자동차 사이의 거리는 추돌 안전거리인 85m, 작업보호자동차들 사이의 거리는 판단 시거(視距, 운전자가 도로 전방을 살펴볼 수 있는 거리)에 따라 300m이다. 라.

The plaintiff spent KRW 29,729,050 as medical expenses of the injured Party A due to a traffic accident according to the motor vehicle injury security agreement entered into with A.

The Korea Highway Corporation is the owner of the defendant vehicle and the defendant MG damage insurance company are the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the distance between the Defendant’s vehicle and the subsequent work-protection vehicle should be 300 meters according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s vehicle and the subsequent work-protection vehicle run away from 110 meters.

The plaintiff is due to the negligence in violation of traffic control standards.