The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 7, even if considering the unique nature of the “business with an exclusive place of business and having profits and losses to a specific person and causing losses to other participants by using specific instruments such as dice, cards, and slot machines” (Article 3(1)5 of the Tourism Promotion Act, “the principle of self-responsibility” is applicable to the legal relations surrounding casino use between the person who obtained permission for a casino business with which a national’s access is allowed pursuant to the Special Act on the Assistance to the Development of Abandoned Mine Areas (hereinafter “casino operator”) and the casino users.

Whether casino games will be carried out by a casino operator is determined by his/her own decision, and as long as a casino customer is aware that he/she has a risk of losing money due to his/her success in the games, the result should also be attributed to his/her own, as long as he/she has participated in the casino games.

Even if a casino operator is subject to comprehensive business regulations for the public interest in relation to the operation of a casino, it is not justified to recognize the duty to protect or take care of the casino operator for the benefit of its users without permission, barring any special circumstance.

A casino operator shall only operate a casino in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the games and provide services necessary for the proceedings of the games, and shall take precedence over the interests of the casino operator for the benefit of his or her own by making his or her own and his or her own success in the games, unless there are clear grounds in the relevant laws and regulations.