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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The Plaintiffs’ assertion added or emphasized by this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

3 pages 11 "each entry in Eul evidence 1" shall be read as "each entry or video of Eul evidence 2 and 4".

4. The "each evidence in the preceding" of the 11st 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. According to the plaintiffs' alleged traffic management guidelines for road construction sites and the "road safety facilities installation and management guidelines", where plastic fences are installed, water shall be obtained in order not to leave the fence, and a single disposal facility shall be installed in the central separation belt protection fence.

However, the shock mitigation unit of this case established by the Defendants at the accident site of this case was not in water, and the end part of the central separation unit connected thereto did not have a single treatment facility and did not have a normal safety.

Therefore, the Defendants, as the owner or possessor of a structure, are liable to compensate for damages due to the death of J.

B. According to the purport of each of the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9 (the number of paper numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all of the arguments, it is acknowledged that the end of the central separation unit connected to the shock mitigation unit of this case did not have a separate facilities, and that part of the shock mitigation unit of this case was exposed to the end of the central separation unit, out of the location installed by combining the shock mitigation unit of this case to a fixed line, and the end of the central separation unit of this case was exposed, and that part of the vehicle of this case was affected by the accident at the end of the central separation unit after the accident.

However, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 12, and No. 2 and 3, and all of the arguments are revealed.