A. On January 22, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 20:10, around 20:10, Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri, and the Defendant was active in the ski

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff, by the instant accident, was treated in a prison, etc., from around February 2, 2010, by suffering from a satise satis, the right satisfy, to the right satisfy.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without any dispute, Gap 1, 3, 6, 8, and 17, and the fact-finding result of the fact-finding on the Seobio Dol, Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant neglected his duty of care to safely conduct by checking the front side and the left and right in the process of getting on and off the skiing, and due to the negligence of proceeding, the defendant's skiing test and the plaintiff's skiing board conflict, thereby making the plaintiff's above 1-B.

As seen in the above, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

B. The limitation of liability for damages, however, according to the evidence mentioned above, the facts of the accident of this case can be acknowledged as the accident of this case as the plaintiff and the defendant did not avoid one another from the point where the accident of this case occurred while getting a skiing from each other. The plaintiff also was involved in the accident of this case because the plaintiff was unable to avoid the defendant who was active while driving a internship in his own proceeding direction, and the scope of skiing is the speed that is coming from the rapid decline of the area due to its characteristics.