1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the following images, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages is established: (a) Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4; and (b) Party A’s evidence Nos. 3 (including household numbers); and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle around April 4, 2019 at around 11 p.m. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(2) While driving the Defendant’s signboard installed on the above side of the road, which was cut down on the ground due to a strong wind, and covered the side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In the process of falling down the signboard owned by the Defendant due to the above accident, it is recognized that the vehicle’s body was blicked and damaged, and that the blick color color flicked on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was flicked. According to the above recognized facts, the Defendant, who is the owner or possessor of the above signboard, caused damage to the Plaintiff due to a defect in the installation or maintenance of the signboard. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is liable for damages to the Plaintiff due to force majeure, but Article 758(1) of the Civil Act provides that the possessor is not liable for damages due to a defect in the construction or maintenance of the structure, if the possessor fails to compensate for damages.

The legislative intent of the above provision is that the manager of a structure must pay attention necessary for the prevention of danger, and that it is fair to impose liability on the manager of the structure in the event of damages caused by realization of risk.

Therefore, the "defect in the installation and preservation of a structure" is the safety of a structure that must be prepared in accordance with its use.