1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On February 25, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) around 08:00 on February 25, 2018, “D” located in Seopo-si C (hereinafter “Sari-si”).

(A) The accident was caused by the collapse of the floor while coming from a sloping room (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury to the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the mouth.

3) At the time, the floor of the place where the instant accident occurred was attached, consisting of a studrelight of diverse sizes. 4) The Defendant is a person operating the instant saba.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-8 (including each number, if there is a ground number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the floor of the place where the instant accident occurred consists of a string of diverse sizes, and thus, it can be easily anticipated that the occurrence of accidents caused by a string of water, etc. away from the body of a user who takes a bath or a string can lead to the occurrence of accidents caused by the string of passengers.

Therefore, in order to prevent such a slick accident, the defendant did not take sufficient measures to prevent the slick accident by separately attaching a facility to prevent a slick soflick or by replacing the materials of the floor surface, and it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred by negligence.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that there is no negligence on the defendant since the floor materials are the substitute stones, and the caution was attached to the "slicker caution", but such measures alone cannot be said to be sufficient to exempt the defendant from liability due to the negligence. Thus, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant suffered from the accident of this case.