[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap was not liable for damages, in case where Eul et al. suffered an injury, such as where Eul et al. used a friendly farming district competition at night with a pro-Japanese Eul et al. using an anti-cotet at night, and she gets off and cut off a fright while running a pro-friendly farming district competition at night, and he was shocked to the right shoulder part of Eul et al. that he left after her he et al., the case affirming the judgment below that there was no violation of the duty of due care to impose damages on Eul

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap's act was within the scope of social reasonableness, and it did not violate the duty of due care to compensate for damages on the ground that Eul's act was within the scope of social reasonableness, and it is not a breach of duty of care to compensate for damages on the part of Eul's entrance side, which was left behind, in case where Gap et al. suffered injuries, such as her febrat and her febrat at the right shoulder, while the febrat and her febrat was engaged in the febrat game at night with his febratt Eul et al. along with his febratt Eul et al., in general, since the febrat competition had a large physical contact and shock among the participants, and in particular, the febrat competition with the febrat at night.

1. A participant in an athletic game has a duty of safety consideration, which is a duty of good faith, to ensure the safety of the life or body of other athletes, while complying with the sports rules. However, a form of athletic game such as sports games where the price for a counter player is mainly formed or a large number of players, such as sports games, such as the mouth or deaf-gu, in which physical contact takes place, is in danger of injury inherent in the game itself, and a participant in the athletic game is at least one degree of risk and participating in the athletic game to the extent anticipated. Thus, whether a participant in an athletic game has fulfilled the above duty of care should be determined by comprehensively considering the type and risk of the game in question, situation at the time of the athletic game, compliance with the sports rules of the parties concerned, the nature and degree of violation of the rules, and the degree of injury, etc., and if the act does not go beyond the reasonable scope of sociality, it shall not be held liable to compensate for damages.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 (hereinafter only referred to as "the defendant 1") suffered physical harm from the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and that the defendant 2 violated the duty of care to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's physical injury during the Cheongju Educational University at around 20:0 on August 4, 209, using only half of the Cheongju Educational University at around 330, Cheongju-gu, Cheongju-gu, and that it was difficult to expect that the defendant 1 had violated the duty of care to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's physical injury caused to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's physical injury to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 suffered from the defendant 1's physical injury at the time of the accident, and that it was difficult to expect the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's physical injury to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's physical injury at the time of the accident.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)