A. The facts of recognition (1) around 07:00 on August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, while getting off and departing from the water skiing of the motor boat operated by the employees of the non-party Hatex Venture Business, was in excess of the line connected to the upper hand of the mother, resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury on the right hand part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the right hand, and resulting in the injury of the closed part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the right hand.

(2) The Defendant concluded a comprehensive water-related leisure insurance contract with the owner of the instant motor boat, with the content that: (a) the insured would compensate the passengers of the water-related leisure craft and the passengers of the water-related leisure craft for damages arising out of the possession, use, or management of the water-related leisure craft due to an insured event that occurs from the ownership, use, or management of the water-related leisure craft; and (b) the insured would compensate the passengers of the water-related leisure craft and the passengers of the towed water-related leisure craft according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”). [The grounds for recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 13, and No. 1, as stated in Evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings]

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the owner of the instant motorboat venture business, and is liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the instant accident.

(2) The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion: (a) immediately after the instant accident, the Plaintiff replaced hand, boarded approximately 10 to 15 minutes water skiing; and (b) lebling sportss at the same place for about 5 hours until about 13 to 14 p.m.; (c) there is no causation between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s injury; and (d) even if the Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was on the ground that he replaced hand immediately after the instant accident, and she was on the part of the Plaintiff, thereby expanding the Plaintiff’s disability.