1. The Defendant’s KRW 209,477,617 as well as 5% per annum from April 6, 2012 to November 29, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 12, and 14 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the result of the physical appraisal commissioned to the Director of the Gyeyang University, the movable property hospital and the hospital of this Court and the purport of the entire pleadings:

On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff, along with the members of the Seoul Senior Citizens Association of the Gu and formed a meeting, and completed an occupancy heart on the second floor, and was injured by damage to the alleys and slopings and slopings (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), at the “E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seoul-do (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”), by falling into the first floor of the stairs installed in the instant restaurant, which was cut down on the first floor of the stairs installed in the instant restaurant, and suffered from damage to the alleys and slopings (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). At present, the Plaintiff is in the state of complete paralysis of the private land, and in the state of movement and complete

B. The instant restaurant consists of one floor and two floors, and the method of proceeding to the second floor is a method of proceeding to the first floor of a restaurant and using wooden stairs installed indoors, and passing through the rooftop using iron stairs installed outside the room on the road. In addition, the indoor stairs were narrow in width and have a gradient of at least 50 degrees.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Although the Defendant is the owner of the instant restaurant building, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant restaurant to F on January 31, 2012 and occupied F while operating the instant restaurant; (b) accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim premised on the Plaintiff’s operator and possessor of the instant restaurant is groundless; (c) so, the Defendant first examines whether the Plaintiff’s claim is the operator and possessor of the instant restaurant, and the following circumstances, i.e., the instant restaurant is registered under the name of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant is liable to compensate for the owner and manager of the instant restaurant.