(b) Where the direct owner, who is a lessee of a building, is the "other person" under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, the first person responsible for the damages as prescribed by the same Act; and

2. If the direct possessor, who is the lessee of a building, is a third party under Article 758-1 of the Civil Act, the first person responsible under the same Act shall be the indirect possessor who is the owner, and the title truster of the building may not be exempted from such liability;

In short, the issue is that the building in question is practically formally and formally owned by Nonparty 1, and even if there is any evidence supporting this, the court below found that the building in question is the actual owner of the building and the defendant is the defendant and the above non-party 1 was under title trust, and it cannot be said that there is any illegality such as the theory of fact-finding in the court below's above fact-finding. It is without merit.

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

In sum, the court below's determination of evidence against Eul's evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 8-1 and 2 is erroneous in the misapprehension of law, and the court below's determination of evidence based on the records is not a rejection of evidence of each subparagraph because it found the original facts based on other evidence and judged that there is no evidence contrary to this recognition, and even if it was rejected, it is not a deviation that can affect the judgment, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of law.

(3) As to the third ground for appeal:

In short, the issue is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of real estate title trust, although the court below acknowledged the defendant as having entrusted the real estate to the non-party 1 and treated the defendant as the owner, in the case where the owner of the real estate has entrusted the real estate to the third party, regardless of the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, and the trust is not treated as the owner, in the case where the owner of the real estate has entrusted the real estate to the third party, the trustee is treated as the owner. However, in the case of the title trust, in the external relationship with the third party, that is, in the relationship with the third party, the trustee is treated as the owner. It is not only necessary to protect the third party acting in good faith and to determine the trustee only

(4) As to the fourth ground for appeal:

In short, even though there is evidence that the defendant is not an occupant of the building of this case, the court below erred by finding the defendant as an occupant in violation of the rules of evidence, and determined that the lessee who leased part of the building of this case, i.e., the victim non-party 2 (the household owner of the plaintiff) who was the victim of this case, is an occupant of the building of this case who is the primary liability for damages under the former part of Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, but the court below held the defendant as an occupant who is the primary liability for damages, which is therefore erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on possession.

The court below recognized the defendant as the possessor of the building of this case. Even though it was not possible for the tenant to violate the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and even if the tenant of part of this building is the first person in charge of damages such as the theory of lawsuit as the first person in direct possession, it is reasonable to interpret the tenant as the so-called "the third person" in Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code at the same time (the first person in charge of damages in case of the victim is the victim) at the same time. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles on possession. There is no reason for the argument.

(5) As to the fifth ground for appeal:

In sum, this paper examines the facts and records that there was a defect due to the negligence on the part of the defendant in violation of the rules of evidence, even though this accident occurred due to the difference in the part of the victim's temporary telephone line, and it is not caused by any other defect, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the theory of the lawsuit in the court below, even if examining the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)