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. The plaintiff's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and it is judged that the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable in light of the evidence adopted

Therefore, the reasoning of the trial court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment similar to that of paragraph (2) to the part claimed by the plaintiff, which is emphasized by the trial court.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident by removing the boundary level between the parking lot entrance and India, despite the fact that the Defendant had a duty to install a parking block to the part adjacent to the parking lot entrance and India.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to deem that the Defendant, who is not the managing body of the road site or India at the site of the instant accident, bears the duty to install a parking block to prevent the collision between the parking lot blockingr and pedestrians. In addition, in light of the circumstances where the parking block preventr is not installed and the circumstance where the instant accident occurred, it is insufficient to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the circumstances where the parking block preventr is not installed and the said accident

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is not accepted.

B. In general, the Plaintiff asserts that the parking lot blocking should be installed at a height of one meter from the floor, but from the instant accident, the parking lot blocking machine is installed to lower the height of pedestrian face, and the place of installation also is installed above the boundary line distinguishing between the parking lot and the delivery, and that it constitutes a structure illegally installed in India and that it does not fulfill its duty to take protective measures.