The defendant shall make the plaintiff 2,112.

A. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as “damage to the dup,” etc. by having the head of the instant golf course at the front of the Plaintiff’s top seat, where the Defendant was faced with the head of the instant golf course at the top of the instant golf course (hereinafter referred to as “the instant golf driving range”) in order to catch golf holes by entering golf tops.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The interval between the instant golf driving range is 230 cm and the interval is relatively narrow, and the instant wing range does not exceed the other party’s wing range if the instant golf driving range is ordinarily engaged in a wing within the other party’s wing. However, in a case where the instant golf driving range takes a detailed attitude where the lower part of the golf wing range falls behind another party’s wing range exceeds the other party’s wing range.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 6-1 to 5

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-2 in addition to the above facts acknowledged as the damages liability, the defendant, at the time of the accident, stated to the effect that "the distance between the other seats of the golf course of this case is narrow so that the defendant might always go beyond the back string and then go back to the lower part of the plaintiff's string. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff could have predicted that the plaintiff's head would go beyond the part of the defendant's string, and that the plaintiff's head did not go beyond the part of the defendant's string," and that "the defendant prices the plaintiff's head beyond the plaintiff's string." The defendant also stated to the effect that "the distance between the other seats of the golf course of this case would go beyond the back string at all times."