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. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an educational foundation that operates the Sinsung Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and the Plaintiff is a person working for the said hospital as a nursing worker.

B. On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff collected 206 inpatientss with nursing care around P.M. in the clean room of the hospital (hereinafter “instant clean room”), which was located in the clean room of the hospital (hereinafter “instant clean room”). As a result, the Plaintiff was suffering from the left-hand slots, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 1; Gap evidence 2-1; Eul evidence 2-2; and Eul evidence 1; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The defect in the establishment and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, which is liable for damages, refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its use. In determining whether such safety has been met, it shall be based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da25118 delivered on January 23, 1998). The facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, i.e., the clean room of this case within the above hospital is a place where the patient's family members, nursing workers, nurses, etc. are frequently rare, so the defendant was unable to exercise a duty of care to prevent the sudden accident by taking measures such as making the patient’s family members, nursing workers, etc. keep a dry state at all times by making the above clean room not to exhaust water, and putting the stop on the floor of the above clean room at all times, and making the defendant do not have a duty of care to prevent the sudden accident. However, the defendant asserts that the slick is the prevention of the collapse on the floor of the clean room of this case.