(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the alley of the pelvis, the pelvis, and the tension, which require approximately four weeks’ medical treatment due to the instant accident. The Plaintiff was treated at the D Hospital from March 20, 2018 to May 2, 2018.

The defendant is a person who actually controls and manages road parts in the apartment complex of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet the ordinary safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and the preservation of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24499 Decided January 14, 2005, etc.). B.

Judgment

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident due to the defect that part of the road in the instant multi-family housing complex, and the defect that part of the road was invaded may be deemed to have been in a state where the road, which is a structure, was not equipped with safety to be installed.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the possessor of the apartment house of this case to which the above road belongs, is liable for damages under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act.

3. Restrictions on and scope of liability for damages.

A. The Plaintiff, even though having limited liability, is walking the instant apartment house.