1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the damages suffered by the Plaintiff were derived from the result of the Defendant’s failure to exercise due diligence in managing the building, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages therefrom. 2) As to this, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was unable to accept the Defendant’s assertion on May 4, 2016, since the maximum wind between the moment of the instant accident fell under 17m/s, which was the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s automobile due to a natural disaster that was unlikely to have been anticipated as a general person, as it was not at the time of the weather or typhoon, and thus, the Defendant was not liable for the instant accident. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have neglected to exercise due diligence necessary for

B. 1) Scope of compensation for damages: (a) even if the exchange price of damaged vehicles at the time of an accident has been remarkably borne by the repair cost, in such a case, it is only possible to claim compensation for damages from the exchange price at the time of the accident, considering the economic aspect as being impossible to repair; and (b) it is consistent with the concept of fairness as to the compensation system only. Therefore, in a case where there is a victim seeking repair costs higher than the exchange price, it is necessary to enter the network in light of social norms to allow the victim to bear the part exceeding the exchange price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da77917, May 24, 201).