The case holding that the owner of a building shall be liable for damages under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act as the direct possessor of the outer wall of the building in case where a signboard installed by a lessee of a part of the building falls down on the outer wall and is injured

The case holding that the owner of a building shall be liable for damages under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act as the direct possessor of the outer wall of the building in case where a signboard installed by a lessee of a part of the building falls down on the outer wall of the building and the

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da30866 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3239) Supreme Court Decision 92Da31668 Decided February 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 944) Decided June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2092), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23741 Decided January 24, 2003

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Na8050 delivered on October 25, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged, based on its adopted evidence, that the signboards attached to the outer wall of the building of this case owned by the defendants are faced with the head of plaintiff 1, who was taking over the above building, and that the above signboards were installed with the consent of the defendants by the non-party 1 who established the private teaching institute by leasing part of the above building, and that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 acquired the right to the signboard by taking over part of the private teaching institute from the non-party 1, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the defendants are co-owned with the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and thus, they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the record, since the defendants leased part of the outer wall of the building in question to another co-owner of the building in this case, they are located in the direct possessor's location as to the outer wall of the building in common use area. Since the tenant non-party 1 of the building in this part 5 explosion five voltss on the outer wall of the building in the 4th and the 5th floor of the building in this case, 2.8m wide, 7m high, and weight 150m high above explosor for the advertisement purpose of the private teaching institute operated by himself by putting a banner on the steel mold in this explosor, 3 out of 5 volts which were anchored on the outer wall of the above building in this case, the above plaintiff 1 who fell without weight and fells with the outer wall of the building in this case, and the above building's outer wall is likely to fall and thus, it is not in conformity with the manufacturing purpose or the outer wall of the building in this case.

Therefore, although the court below has different reasons, the conclusion that recognized the defendants' liability for damages is acceptable. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or inconsistent reasoning that affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)