1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff received medical treatment at a hospital, etc., where the Plaintiff exceeded the large temperature floor of a hotel C hotel located in Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The plaintiff is Ear and is 79 years of age at the time of the accident.

B. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an insurance contract with C Hotel.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff did not have a warning for the prevention of the depression and the prevention of the depression at the place beyond the Plaintiff.

Even if there was a sheet and warning, the Plaintiff, while taking a bath, sustained the injury of the string of the string floor by exceeding the string floor, and C hotel failed to fully perform its duty to protect customers, and the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the above hotel, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for all the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 8,329,728 (=6,329,728 Won) and delay damages amounting to KRW 2,00,000).

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant did not have any material on the bath floor other than the water season, and the bath floor was not to have any degree to which the material of the bath floor would not be easily cut.

At the accident point, a set and warning is attached to prevent the sod, and even if no sod is installed, such as the plaintiff's argument, it can not be said that the fault of the hotel's duty to protect is recognized.

B. Only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14-1, and 2 are insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff had no warning for the prevention of the depression and the fordrum at the point beyond the plaintiff at the time of the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Even if there was no set to prevent the decline as argued by the Plaintiff, C hotel is general.