A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Crop vehicles owned by B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On October 5, 2016, B parked the instant vehicle at the parking lot of the general steel structure and the third floor roof of reinforced concrete (slve) roof (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Ulsan-gu, the Defendant-owned (hereinafter “instant building”). However, there was an accident where the front unit, the upper part, and the rear glass of the instant vehicle were destroyed due to a strong winding of typhoons, as the outer wall of the instant building and the signboards installed thereon are far from the signboards installed, and the instant vehicle was shocked.

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

On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,299,350 at the repair cost of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, images, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's liability for damages and scope

A. 1) In the event that a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure causes damage to another person, the possessor of the structure shall be liable for damages (Article 758(1) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, in a case where a signboard installed by a lessee of a part of the building falls down on the outer wall of the building and is injured by the driver, the owner of the building shall be liable for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act as the direct possessor of the outer wall of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da65516, Feb. 28, 2003). Therefore, the fact that the outer wall of the building of this case and the signboard installed are far away from the strong wind and damaged the vehicle of this case is as seen earlier, in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident and the parts of the building damaged, it is reasonable to deem that the building of this case was caused by a defect that was not equipped with safety ordinarily in accordance with its use.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the owner of the building of this case, is not in special circumstances.