1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the facts are as stated in Paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment, except for the following: “The plaintiff was injured by a sule, sulfur reflectivity, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”), while making a combination of Non-Party B and Squisibly movement around 19:50 on January 27, 2015, according to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as stated in Paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment.”

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's friendly negligence because the plaintiff did not send a public figure to the front wall in violation of the duty of safety consideration in the above Switzerland while running the ubiquitous game. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay as the insurer of the above B the insurance money of KRW 293,518,430 in total within the scope of the duty of compensation for damages arising from the above tort in the above tort in 271,343,780 in daily income of KRW 2,174,650 in daily income of KRW 20,000,000 in total and damages for delay after the date of the accident in this case.

B. Since a person participating in a sports-related legal doctrine event may vary due to his/her own conduct, he/she bears the duty of safety consideration, which is the duty of good faith, to ensure the safety of the life or body of other competitors, while complying with the sports rules.

In the form of sports games where the price for the counter player is mainly formed, such as decentralization and Taekwondo, there is a risk of injury inherent in the game itself which is accompanied by physical contact in one area, and a participant in the game is at least to some extent at the risk and participate in the game to the extent that it can be anticipated.