1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle"). The defendant is a local government which has established and manages the Manle, which is a sewerage system in the Seongbuk-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do (hereinafter "the manle of this case"), there is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 30, 2015, while the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle is proceeding with the Seongbuk-dong Seongbuk-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-si, the accident occurred that led the Plaintiff’s vehicle to escape from the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading to the shock of the Police Vehicle B, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The plaintiff paid 16,651,00 won for repair costs and 560,820 won for the driver's medical expenses as insurance money due to the loss of the police-wheeled vehicle and the driver's injury.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the person in charge of management of the instant road and Manlele, should have taken safety measures such as restricting access to the instant road if the Manle was damaged after the construction of the instant Manle, or installing the safety net or Manle, etc., but left alone. Since the instant accident occurred due to such defects in the management of the road or Manle, the Defendant is obligated to reimburse the Plaintiff who acquired the insurer’s subrogation right under Article 682 of the Commercial Act (i.e., KRW 17,211,820 (i.e., KRW 16,651,00, KRW 560,820).

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred was that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle requested the police officer, who passed the instant road because the front wheels of the vehicle was missing due to the damage to the front lid of the vehicle, and the police officer discussed the method of dealing with the instant accident on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and decided to follow the police officer’s signals, and did not send any signal between the police officer and the police officer intended to move to the front wheel.