beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this Court concerning the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Determination added
A. Although there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Defendants asked the Plaintiff to grant a branch office, the Plaintiff stated that the tool needed for the value-making was D on the date of first instance trial of the first instance court on July 3, 2014, and that the Plaintiff was the person who forced the Plaintiff to give a branch office on the date of trial of the first instance court (the second page of the written reply of March 30, 2015). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Defendants asked the Plaintiff to grant a branch office is without merit.
B. The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be based on whether the installer and 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 Decisions 94Da16328, Oct. 28, 1994; 97Da27022, Oct. 10, 197). Therefore, even if an accident occurred in a structure, barring any special circumstance, if the accident occurred as a result of an exceptional behavior not in compliance with the ordinary usage of the structure, it shall not be deemed that the installer and custodian of the structure has the duty to take protective measures against such accident.
Supreme Court Decision 97Da25118 Decided January 23, 1998
If Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3 of Eul's evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 3 are collected and the purport of the whole film and pleading is gathered, the plaintiff completed the removal.