A. Defendant B leased approximately 25 years prior to the previous 25 years to operate a store of 42.9 square meters in a store for one-story neighborhood living facilities in the previous west-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant building”), and Defendant C is the owner of the instant building, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed on March 25, 2016 (sale on February 20, 2016).

B. On April 7, 2017, around 13:48, the Plaintiff was allowing to sit in front of the instant building. At that time, there was an accident where the signboard gate of the instant building (hereinafter “instant signboard gate”) was separated from the instant building, and its impact was reduced, and its impact was at the price of the Plaintiff’s head, hand, face, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiff suffered an injury in the number of days of treatment due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 17 evidence, Eul evidence 1-3, 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The occurrence of liability for damages refers to a structure’s defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which the structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its intended purpose. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent that is generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24499, Jan. 14, 2005). Here, the safety of the structure, which is originally required, is required not only for its intended purpose, but also for the situation in which the structure is actually being installed.