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 insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B New FD vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. C, around 03:00 on August 1, 2015, while driving the instant vehicle and driving the national highway No. 5 adjacent to the Goyangyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun into a single-gun area in Yyang-gun, the front left-hand side of the instant vehicle was shocked by shocking shocks between the starting point and the central separation zone at the central separation zone, and died due to the said accident.

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

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 106,614,000 in total, including KRW 100 million due to C death, KRW 1,694,00 due to damage to the central separation zone, and KRW 4,920,00 due to the damage of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the accident in this case occurred when the defendant managing the non-performance of safe driving of C and the national highways inevitably installs the central separation zone, and the defect in public structures such as the installation of shock absorption facilities with considerably insufficient shock absorption function at the beginning part of the central separation zone, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay 42,645,600 won out of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

It is not enough to recognize that the central separation zone has to be continuously installed on the road in which the accident of this case, which is the straight section, solely with the descriptions of the Domins and Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers), or that the shock absorption function of the shock absorption facilities installed by the defendant is insufficient. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.