1. All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Defendant’s assistant intervenors are dismissed.

2. This shall be caused by the participation in the appeal costs;

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” to the assertion that the supplementary intervenor emphasizes in this court, and therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part of the reasoning for the judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The supplementary decision-making intervenor asserts that the instant electronic display board is not a public structure managed by the Defendant Republic of Korea.

The term "public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to fluids or physical facilities which are provided by the State or local governments for specific public purposes, including cases where the State or local governments manage by ownership, lease or other rights, as well as cases where the State or local governments manage by themselves (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da17381, Oct. 23, 1998).

Even if the chief of the police station affiliated with the defendant Republic of Korea approved the installation of the electronic sign board of this case to the defendant B around January 1996, and permitted the extension of the approval period around February 2006, the original electronic sign board of this case cannot be deemed as being installed for traffic campaign and corrective publicity and not granted for public purposes, and the supplementary participant was involved in the brightness control of the electronic sign board of this case, it is reasonable to view the electronic sign board of this case as an accessory to the road of this case and constitutes a public structure actually managed by the defendant Republic of Korea.

Therefore, the supplementary intervenor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Defendants and the Intervenor are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.