1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,741,764 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 30, 2013 to May 30, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On February 2012, the Defendant entered into a “D Contract” with C and constructed a weather observation tower.

On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the construction site in order to gather a weather observation tower as an E filmer.

At around 16:00 on the same day, the defendant set up a camera at the inside of the observation tower to take outside, etc., and the defendant F, an employee of the defendant, was on board with the plaintiff and operated the elevator. While the elevator increased, it conflicts with the steel frame structures installed outside the elevator.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the heat injury, the damage to the dental plant, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, F, who operates the elevator of the weather observation tower, has been negligent in operating the elevator and urged the Plaintiff to pay due attention, while he had been careful, to avoid collision with the structure of the weather observation tower by the Plaintiff boarding the elevator part and photographing the elevator in the camera. This led to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

The defendant is the user of F and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

C. However, the limitation of liability is limited to the defendant's liability ratio to 70% in consideration of these circumstances, even though the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, should also endeavor to ensure the safety of himself by, not to conflict with the structures of the weather observation tower in the process of installing a camera in the elevator and photographing the outside.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not responsible for the defendant since the rail support unit and face conflict while trying to take photographs out of the elevator in operation.