1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money that orders additional payment is revoked.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was liable to compensate for damages as to the cause of the instant accident, in full view of the following: (a) around 16:00 on January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was injured by light fluoral salt, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the Defendant was the manager of the said road in which the instant accident occurred; (c) there is no dispute between the parties; and (d) the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4; and (e) the images and arguments of the evidence Nos. 6, the fact that the news block of the report at the time of the instant accident was damaged at the time of the instant accident; and (e) the damaged news block was buried on the ground, contrary to maluor, around the damaged

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the report of this case was in the state of hindering pedestrian traffic because pedestrians who walk the sidewalk at the time followed the damaged news block, cut off the damaged news block, or cut off the waste, such as a rain, etc.

In such cases, the defendant who manages the above news report has a duty to take protective measures for pedestrians to safely walk the above news report by repairing the above news block and neglecting garbage, but failed to perform the said duty, the report installed at the point of the above accident was in a state that does not have the stability ordinarily.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case as the installer or manager of the news report to which the accident of this case belongs.

On the other hand, considering the limitation of liability and the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 as a whole, the time when the accident of this case occurred was 16:00 p.m., and the weather was clear at that time, and the plaintiff can find the fact that the plaintiff, while walking along D with D at that time, did not discover the shape of the above report, and according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff also walk along the sidewalk.