The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3, where the victim was negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages in a tort compensation case, this shall be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, the fact-finding or the proportion thereof as to the grounds for comparative negligence is within the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it

(2) On November 26, 2002, Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da43165, Jan. 12, 2012; 2010Da79947, Jan. 12, 2012, etc.). The lower court partially cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment and, in addition to the reasons indicated in its reasoning, determined that (1) it cannot be deemed that there was a breach of the duty of care in having the company F, an employee of the Defendant, take the part of the Plaintiff’s work at the continuous request of the Plaintiff’s work, and (2) the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident contributed to the Plaintiff’s negligence; (2) the Plaintiff’s negligence was much more than the Plaintiff’s negligence, and thus, limited the Defendant’s liability as stated in its reasoning, by recognizing that the Plaintiff’s negligence was much more than the F, who violated the duty of safety consideration during the

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s fact-finding or its determination on comparative negligence cannot be deemed to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the negligence liability, the duty under the Enforcement Rule of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, the principle of equity, the comparative negligence, the determination thereof, the operator’s responsibility or user liability, etc., thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court stated in its reasoning.