The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is a corporation that leases and operates the instant golf club located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD (hereinafter “instant golf driving range”) from a F hotel, located between the instant building and the fourth line road.

B. On May 2019, the Plaintiff discovered that part of the outer wall glass of the fifth floor was damaged while cleaning the glass of the outer wall of the instant building by providing services to a cleaning business entity of outer walls.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) C.

On July 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Seocho-gu Office on the ground that the instant accident was due to golf balls or a day in the instant golf driving range operated by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Seocho-gu Office had conducted confirmation of facts and on-the-spot verification on July 2, 2019, and requested measures to prevent recurrence. The Defendant Company’s employees responded to the “a civil petition that goes beyond golf balls, which would consult with a hotel for prevention measures.” The Defendant Company’s employees followed measures such as setting up a safety net and keeping a notice.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact-finding inquiry report to the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's cause of the claim is the cause of the claim in this case, and the accident in this case where the glass of the outer wall of the building in this case is damaged due to golf hole coming from the golf driving range operated by the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages equivalent to the cost of glass repair damaged due to

3. Determination

A. Therefore, in light of the above facts, we examine whether or not the glass of the building of this case was damaged due to the golf hole coming from the instant golf driving range.