1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On October 23, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) driven a car with BK5 car on the road in the Asan-si Sasan-si Sasan-si; (b) caused the damage of the said K5 car by shocking down the lower part of the road surface while driving the road in the Asan-si Sasan-si Sasan-si.

As an insurer of the said car, the Plaintiff paid A the said car repair cost of KRW 787,00 as insurance money.

As above, the omission of the construction and management of the defendant's road is attributable to the failure of the defendant's construction and management. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount of 787,000 won equivalent to the above insurance proceeds, and damages for delay.

2. Where a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, is caused by an act of a third party after the construction of the road, the preservation defect of the road can not be recognized only with such a defect, and even if such defect can be restored to the original state by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the structure, location, environment and current use of the road concerned, it shall be determined individually and specifically by examining whether the defect has been left to the original state. In objectively and objectively, the maintenance defect of the road shall not be recognized if the possession manager's management act is under the situation where the possession manager's management act cannot affect the time and location of the safety defect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da12796 delivered on July 9, 199). Therefore, just because the existence of falling goods on the road at the time of the instant accident, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in the construction, preservation, and management of a road, which is a structure, solely on the ground that there was falling goods on the road at the time of the instant accident, and the existence or absence of a defect in the management of the Defendant should be determined depending on whether the said defect was neglected even if it was possible to ensure the

In full view of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the overall purport of video and pleading, this case.