1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this Court’s judgment on the facts and the summary of the parties’ arguments is as stated in the reasoning of Articles 1 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, this Court’s judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the relationship of the possession of a structure in the equipment room of this case refers to the person who has the authority to repair and manage the structure in order to prevent various accidents that may arise from the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure in fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da386, Apr. 21, 200). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act, the liability for damages incurred to another person due to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is first and specifically controlled by the direct and specific possession of the structure, and the possessor of the structure is subject to the secondary liability for damages to the owner of the structure when he/she is exempted from liability by proving that he/she did not exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da2351, Jan. 12, 1993); further, the person who has not been directly or indirectly held by the possessor of the structure in question is liable for damages to the third party.