1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, thereby citing this case’s assertion in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination of 2.

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 1 is the owner and manager of the facility in which the instant accident occurred and is responsible for the installation and preservation of the structure, and even if not, in violation of the duty to protect the life and body of the customer, the Plaintiff is liable for damages arising from incomplete performance. 2) The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 2 and 3 caused damages to the Plaintiff by intentionally or negligently causing the instant accident, and thus, Defendant 2 and 3 is liable for damages. 3) The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants are liable for damages arising therefrom, since the Defendants committed an illegal act, such as falsely manipulating the circumstances of the instant accident and compelling the Plaintiff to make a false statement, the Plaintiff is liable for damages arising therefrom. (2) The determination of whether the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to the situation in which the structure was not equipped with safety ordinarily required depending on its intended purpose. Thus, in determining whether the safety was equipped with the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s duty of installation and maintenance of the structure in question should be determined based on the Plaintiff’s duty of installation and maintenance of the structure in question.