All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the defects of the instant road and the electronic display board, the lower court determined that the instant accident occurred due to the defect in the installation and management of the instant road and the electronic display board, which is a public structure, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on defects in the construction and management of public structures, and by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation,

2. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the managing body of the instant road, the lower court determined that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under the Defendant’s control became the managing body

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the reasoning of the lower judgment is partially inappropriate, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on road management entities.

3. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the managing body of the electronic sign board of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable for damages as the managing body or the person bearing the expenses, on the premise that the electronic sign board of this case constitutes a public structure.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the above determination by the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, we did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to public structures and the legal principles as to the person bearing the expenses.

Supreme Court Decisions 96Da6479 delivered on May 28, 1996 and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da14934, and 14941 Delivered on December 8, 2000, which are cited in the grounds of appeal, are different from this case, and thus, in this case.