구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant A and the artistic stage acid shall be modified as follows.
Defendant.
1. As to this part of the basic facts, this Court's reasoning is the same as the entry of "1. Recognition" in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the basic facts are written or added as follows. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
Part 3 of the 4th judgment of the first instance court "Seoul Rodrida" shall be applied to the "Seoul Rodrid Pluxa" to the university.
The fourth through nine parts of the judgment of the first instance court (C. 1) are as follows. (1) Defendant extreme team was engaged in the installation of lighting fixtures in the instant theater for the performance of the above "on November 16, 2009" (hereinafter referred to as "the instant bridge"). The instant bridge was manufactured on December 13, 2008 by Defendant A, which was sold to the Plaintiff on February 5, 2009, with the instruction of the employees of Defendant Incorporated Foundation, and was connected to a gallon of the second floor of the instant theater and corridor connected to the passage, and was used by Defendant C, with the height of 5 meters in height of the Plaintiff owned on the passage (hereinafter referred to as "the instant bridge"). The instant bridge was sold to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2009, and the period of sales guarantee was 12 months after the sale, which was 15 months after the Central Team of the first instance judgment."
Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court "2010da27132" shall be applied to "2010da37132".
"Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 9-1, 2, and 10, Evidence No. 10, and Evidence No. 4 in Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to the evidence No. 14-15 of the first instance court.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim in this case against the Defendants regarding the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendants is limited to “D” for convenience, on the grounds that the Defendants’ “the manufacturer of the instant bridge (in the case of Defendant A)” or “the violation of the duty of safety consideration (the Defendant extreme group and Defendant Incorporated Foundation)” (hereinafter “D and its family members”).