손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion also asserts that the accident of this case is not caused by the defect in the establishment and preservation of the safety net of this case, and even if the defendant's defect is found, it is caused by the negligence of the plaintiff himself who had a considerable degree of skiing, so the victim's negligence should be considered to be more than 90%.
B. (1) Determination of whether there is a defect in the safety facility of the instant safe facility (A) 1 The attached Table 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism No. 188, Dec. 22, 2014; enacted on June 23, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule”) provided that “ski ground safety facilities shall be installed at places where users in skif are in danger of safety accidents (safety net safety mats, etc.).” However, the amended Enforcement Rule stated as follows: “The safety net shall be installed at places where users in skif are in danger of safety accidents, or one of the safety net and safety mats shall be installed.” The safety net height shall be at least 1.8 meters from the ground of the skiing, at least 1.5 meters from the snow surface, and the safe net shall be at least 0 meters from the snow, and the safe net shall be at least 5 meters from the shock.”