2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

A. From the 9th floor E operated by the Defendant, “F” was opened for 14 days from January 22, 2016 to February 4, 2016 (hereinafter “instant event”).

B. On January 30, 2016, at around 13:00, when the exercise of the instant case was in progress, the Plaintiff A, who was watching the instant event, was able to see at the wind where Nonparty G was installed in that place (hereinafter “each of the instant fields”). At around 13:0, the Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the right-hand A and the right-hand side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

C and B are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of each of the instant structures, and that the defendant can be said to be the possessor of each of the above structures, and therefore, the defendant asserts that he is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code.

B. In determining the Defendant’s liability for damages under the former part of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant should be recognized as the possessor of the building. The possessor of a structure means a person who has the authority and responsibility to repair and manage structures in order to prevent various accidents that may arise due to defects in the installation or preservation, while de facto controlling the structure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da386 delivered on April 21, 2000). In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the instant event is one of the E planning events, and the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor who entered into a successive contract with Defendant (D) and Red Planning (hereinafter “participating”) has overall control over, planned, and held the event, and the intervenor is again proceeding with the education love and event of the stock company.