two persistent routes

in my corporate i dont use second persistent route. we not add it and we dont need it. it is in lan area, there are not vpns. it is not added manually.

Can you mention those persistent routes? (only if it is not against your IT policy)

in routing table mast be only one persistent route

For normal operation, a PC/server/whatever DOES NOT NEED a persistent route. Only the default gateway is necessary, which doesn't show up as a persistent route.
As you mentioned, you don't need a persistent route for VPN services or whatever, so this persistent route can be deleted. Just write down and log this info, just in case you missed something and you need to add it back.
Anyway, you have conflicting posts, one saying you must have one persistent route, and one where you say you don't need any. Which one is it?

i have configure the default gw. does it the same?
i dont need second persistent route.
i can manually delete them, but i want to know from where it comes? and what result ?

Default gateway is the only thing you need. It's hard to tell where it comes from. The results depends, it might not have even worked at all (you can post the routes here before deleting it though, if you like).
Again, the command "route print" should have a this as result (for any normal connection):
Persistent Routes:
  None

in this example there is one network interface.

PS C:\Windows\system32> route print

===========================================================================

Interface List

15...00 15 5d c8 3d 39 ......Microsoft Hyper-V Network Adapter #3

  1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1

13...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter

===========================================================================

 

IPv4 Route Table

===========================================================================

Active Routes:

Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric

          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.200.1   192.168.200.77    261

        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0         On-link         127.0.0.1    306

        127.0.0.1  255.255.255.255         On-link         127.0.0.1    306

  127.255.255.255  255.255.255.255         On-link         127.0.0.1    306

    192.168.200.0    255.255.255.0         On-link    192.168.200.77    261

   192.168.200.77  255.255.255.255         On-link    192.168.200.77    261

  192.168.200.255  255.255.255.255         On-link    192.168.200.77    261

        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0         On-link         127.0.0.1    306

        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0         On-link    192.168.200.77    261

  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255         On-link         127.0.0.1    306

  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255         On-link    192.168.200.77    261

===========================================================================

Persistent Routes:

  Network Address          Netmask  Gateway Address  Metric

          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.200.1  Default

          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.200.1  Default

===========================================================================

 

IPv6 Route Table

===========================================================================

Active Routes:

If Metric Network Destination      Gateway

  1    306 ::1/128                  On-link

  1    306 ff00::/8                 On-link

===========================================================================

Persistent Routes:

  None

PS C:\Windows\system32>

The persistent route isn't anything more than declaring the default gateway (AGAIN, as it is always already set in the TCP/IP settings). So just ignore it.

I can't ignore it, because I don't know the reasons why it happens.
Some servers has double persistent routes o GW address, but what's very strange, some servers has persistent route to network that is not connected to the server.

Example
Server IP - 192.168.8.13
GW - 192.168.8.1

Persistent Routes:
   Network Address          Netmask  Gateway Address  Metric
           0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.8.1  Default
           0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.99.1  Default

I said ignore it, because your examples up till then were fine as it is. Only in the last post did you post something different.
In this case, just delete both routes. I already said you should delete it in previous posts. I also said you don't need a persistent route if you don't use special network functions. As you can see, it tries to be a default gateway which doesn't make any sense, even if that extra gateway was working (if it was functional, it would be a smaller IP range to forward to that extra gateway). I only said ignore it, because it didn't matter in the previous example, and because you keep asking after I said delete a few times.

Will it be wise to check your VLAN settings in your core switches for some clues? If you haven't checked the settings in your core switches, I would suggest you to check it out. Also have a look into your entire network diagrams and I believe there should be such kind of diagrams with your IT. Once you go through all these, I am sure you will find the answers by yourself.

With out any details of your network setup, I do not think any one would be able to give you a definite answer.

The first example that I posted is not fine, as you can see there were two persistent routes for same network on the same IP and with same metric. The second example is similar situation, but with different IPs. And it is not important how many network cards are installed on the server/ws. Just one connected network interface has configured only one gateway. This dual route presents not on all servers/ws.
I have already deleted all persistent routes and set gateway manually.

I haven't check any settings on core switches. I'll check.
It is interesting how core switches can add routes on servers/ws.

I just want do understand - how this routes appear in route table? Can it be from some software or network wrong configuration?

I said it's "fine" as in, it doesn't interfere with your settings (it's just double, saying the same things). The second example is definitely not "fine", as it might interfere with the normal gateway settings.

As you already explained many times, you don't use any special networking, so my recommendation from the very start still stands, have the gateway in the TCP IP settings, and remove persistent routes.

Core switches cannot add routes to your computer or server. It has to be done manually, or a script/program must have been run with administrator rights.

it is possible dynamic host routes are added automatically to the local routing table for computers in a network with multiple routers
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12-2/25ew/configuration/guide/conf/connect.html

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/c2443864-e097-4576-bc72-6de0b7028fee/forum-faq-dynamic-host-routes-are-added-automatically-to-the-local-routing-table-for-computers-in-a?forum=winserverPN