1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 112,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 30, 2015 to June 9, 2016, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with Samdo Transportation Co., Ltd. with respect to Asi (hereinafter “instant taxi”), which is its owned vehicle, and the Defendant is a local government that manages Hando-ri 364-4 road department in the Sinsan-si.

B. B is the taxi driver of the instant taxi.

B around 22:50 on February 2, 2015, at the end of 22:50, the front road (hereinafter “instant road”) in front of the entrance of the taxi platform in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, KTX-4-4, KTX Acheon-si (hereinafter “instant road”) was going to be an airbing area from C to an airbing area. On the opposite side of the instant road in the Uton section, the C 650cc ambaba, driven by E, driving in front of the front part of the instant taxi, which was driven by E, going to a two-lane of the four lanes opposite to the instant road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 3, 2015, E died of 00:10 on February 3, 2015 due to the instant accident, with double fluoral damage and fluoral plea. D.

B was prosecuted as the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc., and the above court rendered a judgment on July 13, 2015 that the person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for a period of two years in the suspension of execution on August 13, 2015. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

E. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff calculated the negligence of the instant accident of E as 30% after consultation with the bereaved family members of E, and paid 280,000,000 won to the bereaved family as compensation for damages.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred concurrently with the defect that the Defendant erroneously installed and operated signal apparatus on the instant road and did not properly manage the guidance sign, and the negligence of B, a taxi driver of the instant taxi. Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act.