1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) visited Subdivision and D stores located in Jeju-si C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on August 13:30, 2015; and (b) occupied the instant restaurant.

On the same day, the restaurant floor of this case, which was down at the Jeju city, was sucked with the water flag to be asked in customers' rains, shoes, etc., but in the light of the characteristics of the location of the restaurant floor of this case, it is inevitable to slick the water equipment.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not properly take necessary measures to ensure the safety of customers, such as cutting down the floor of the water or slicking prevention devices.

이로 인해 식사를 마치고 나오던 원고가 이 사건 식당 입구 근처에서 미끄러지면서 약 8주간의 치료가 필요한 우측 무릎뼈 골절 등의 상해를 입었다.

As above, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the Defendant’s negligence, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for KRW 10,271,364 (the treatment cost of KRW 276,800, KRW 4,994,564, KRW 5,00,00) and damages for delay.

B. In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 7, the result of this court’s inspection of CCTV images installed in the instant restaurant, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s place beyond is the entrance of the instant restaurant, which is a place where the passage of employees and customers is high, and thus, it seems that other employees and customers did not go beyond the point of time before and after the Plaintiff took place.

(In addition, CCTVs were recorded on the cafeterias around the restaurant entrance of this case, and there was no way to see that boys are slicking or slicking the floor, such as flicking or slick-distances. Considering the above circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the cafeterias floor of this case was slicked due to rainwater, etc. on the sole basis of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 8, and 9.

Therefore, this is applicable.