1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the part for which the plaintiff claims or emphasizes an additional claim in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure that did not install a fall prevention facility, such as a fall railing, even though there was a narrow channel leading to the first floor warehouse and boiler room, which might have been emitted in the passage, and even though there was a danger of falling on the ground of a narrow channel leading to the outer upper floor of the instant restaurant owned by Defendant B, and that there was a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure that did not install a fall prevention facility, such as a fall prevention, despite the fact that the toilets of the instant restaurant leased and operated by Defendant C were taken out on the first floor of the instant building where the toilets of the instant restaurant was installed, the location of the accurate toilet was informed even if the toilets could not be discovered on the left side of the instant restaurant, or that the Deceased did not take a caution or warning on the stairs of the first floor outside the instant building, and did not perform his duty of safety consideration, thereby falling out from the stairs of the first floor.

B. The defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination shall be based on whether the installer or the custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010).