1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance" is "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance," and the reasoning for the judgment is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the 12th and 7th to 14th are "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance," and that it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus,

2. The part of the elevator used after the defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, including Non-Installation, etc. of Elevators in the Instigious House, and it is obvious in light of empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered physical inconvenience and mental suffering. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay monetary compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff. Thus, in calculating the amount, even though the defendant was sentenced to the court's decision to pay consolation money of KRW 3 million for damages for reasons of non-elevator installation, etc. for physically disabled students around 2007, the defendant still did not install an elevator for reasons of budgetary circumstances, such as the disadvantage of the defendant and the fact that the plaintiff was admitted to the school operated by the defendant, even though he was aware of the lack of convenience facilities of the disabled, the defendant also seems to have made efforts to a certain extent within the scope permitted by the budget, and other circumstances shown in the records of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. If so, as to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5 million and KRW 3 million, the part cited in the judgment of the first instance court, among them, the Defendant raised a dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s duty of performance from March 17, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff until September 26, 2014, which is the date the judgment of the first instance court is rendered.