1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 22:00, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”); (b) caused by the escape of the protruding signboards from the 187 Mayang Construction site (hereinafter “the instant building”) to the first floor from the 2nd floor to the 1st floor of the Gu citizens (hereinafter “the instant building”); and (c) caused the instant accident, which was dissipated from the said stairs without a radrum preventive facility; and (d) caused the instant accident to the left part of the said stairs; (b) the lower part of the lower part of the left part of the instant building; (c) the lower part of the instant accident, 1 type, 1 type, 4-5 type, 4-5 type, 4-5 type, and other obstacles, such as the escape of the prone signboards from the Huurineebelleeg, accompanied by ppuri disease.

Therefore, the council of occupants' representatives at Ansan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant council of occupants' representatives") is the owner of the building in this case, and the defendant Hanyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company") is the possessor of the building in this case and is liable for damages of the owner and possessor of the structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act to the plaintiff who suffered damages from the above harm caused by the accident in this case. Thus, the defendants are liable for damages to each plaintiff as the owner of the building in this case. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay to each plaintiff the total amount of damages (= KRW 57,973,624 medical expenses of KRW 5,378,50,000 - KRW 5,500,000 for the insurance money received by the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred, the Defendants notified the Defendants of the instant accident at the end of February 2014, which was after a considerable period of time from the date of the instant accident, or after the lapse of the pertinent period. At the said time, it was impossible to confirm whether the instant accident occurred due to the removal of CCTV images of the instant building from the time of the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no occurrence of the instant accident, which is first asserted by the Plaintiff.