1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On June 4, 2016, around 20:38, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) erroneously reported the lane on the road near the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu High-Tech Industrial Center; and (b) led to the collision of the India-do boundary on the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while straighting along the right-hand lane.

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

On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 56,000,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The road, which is the location of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was difficult for drivers to find it difficult at night to identify the facilities of the front door, and the facilities, such as reflect boards, which can prevent collision, are not properly equipped. The accident in this case occurred concurrently with the Defendant’s negligence responsible for the management of the road in this case and the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case is at least 30%.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence to the plaintiff who has acquired the right to claim for indemnity in accordance with the subrogation legal principle of insurer subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act by paying the insurance money under the name of the plaintiff

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was negligent in managing the road, which is the place of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred in the course of the Plaintiff’s driver’s moving into the fourth lane prior to the right-hand, and the said fourth lane was repeatedly indicated on the right-hand road, and the phrase “the caution” was also indicated.