beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,380,948 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 2, 2013 to May 17, 2018.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On March 2, 2013, at around 1:30 p.m., the Plaintiff was getting off the stroke from the top (1,127mm.) of the stroke in the Yongsan Liart Ski ground operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant stroke”).
The instant sludge was in the form of maintaining a certain slope from the lower part of the lower part of the slope to the lower part, which was the largest gradient of 43%, the lowest gradient of 7%, and the upper part, as the course for superior, and the lower part of the slope was in the form of maintaining a certain slope. However, the Plaintiff was driving away from the right side of the slot while getting off the instant sludge to the lower part of the slope, and was in conflict with the trees around that area (hereinafter “instant accident”).
As a result, the plaintiff suffered injuries such as the structural frame of the left-hand side of the lower-hand side, the non-refluence of the left-hand side of the lower-hand side, the construction of 2,3less refluences, the refluence of the left-hand side, the refluence of the left-hand side, the refluence of the left-hand side, the reflu
【In the absence of dispute, there is a defect in installation and preservation as follows in the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a defect in the establishment and preservation of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 9, Eul evidence 5-1-6, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, witness Eul’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.
The Defendant, as the owner and manager of the instant slot, failed to take any measures to remove the parts of the skis or to maintain the adequate snow so that users can safely escape from the skis or the skis, and neglected the parts of the sloices, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to take any measures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was faced with the parts of the instant sloices.
The defendant's defect in the installation of the safety net shall be the slved of this case.