1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

B. On July 17, 2017, around 15:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked near B and C in the front city of the front city. At that time, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”) as one of the fences located adjacent to the said place and the banner pole installed by the Defendant on the wall (hereinafter “instant pole”).

C. The Defendant did not fix the instant columns on the ground, set a V and width at the middle part of the fenced of the wall, without fixing them on the ground, and installed two columns by having more than half of the height of the columns covered the wall, and put up a banner at the same place.

On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,300,250 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the columns of this case installed by the defendant are acknowledged to have been in a state of failing to meet safety requirements ordinarily required for its use, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is the possessor of the columns of this case, which are a structure, and unless there are special circumstances, he is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident of this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by natural power or caused by the defect of the fence, and that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in parking the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the sidewalk, and therefore, the Defendant should bear only the responsibility for the degree of contribution to the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant installed a scam and structure.