1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty A and “B Spick Vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) setting the insurance period as “from March 2, 2012 to March 2, 2015.”

B. At around 03:20 on March 13, 2014, A, while under the influence of alcohol, driven the instant vehicle at a 0.157% alcohol concentration, and driven the instant vehicle at a four-lane road at the entrance of the upstream-prevention west-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “road” in this case) located in the north-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Ulsan Airport”), along three-lanes at the economic promotion center, changed the two-lanes, while driving the road at a speed of 60 km to 70 km to the city, and driving the road at a speed of 60 km or 70 km toward the Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”). At around that time, A, while under the influence of alcohol, by the negligence of failing to well look at the front left at the two-lanes, led to the death of the instant vehicle by spreading it to the front part of the instant vehicle, and by allowing the head of the Dong-dong at around that time.

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

The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the instant vehicle, paid KRW 119,93,690 insurance proceeds to the bereaved family members, etc. of C on March 21, 2014 in relation to the instant accident.

The road of this case is owned and managed by the defendant as part of the 7th line of national highways.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s major assertion (1) had the following defects in the construction and management of the road on the instant road.

(A) In installing and managing a subdivision of the instant protective fence, the Defendant installed a unit with proven performance through a performance test test to comply with the installation and management guidelines of road safety facilities that were in force at the time, and used a unit to make the shock absorption possible.