1. The Defendant: 21,611,650 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 12, 2014 to January 25, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company operating the Home Plus Market (hereinafter “The Home Plus Market”) that is the possession and manager of the House Plus Market Access Automatic (hereinafter “the instant automatic text”) and the Plaintiff was the customer who left shopping in the City Plus Market.

B. On May 12, 2014, at around 15:30, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the escape of a protruding up to the right shoulder, and the escape of a protruding signboard at around 5-6, 6-7, by shocking the right shoulder and the upper part of the automatic text of this case, while entering the instant automatic text, which was opened immediately after the opening of the customer’s name and immediately after the opening.

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

The upper part of the instant automatic text, which was installed in the direction of entry, can reduce the area of 120 degrees at 1m prior to the entry, but the area of 30 degrees from the center of the center of the center is a blind zone that does not have a sense, and the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident, which was installed immediately before the automatic text, and there was no warning or warning on the automatic text, such as “this case’s automatic text might be affected by or against the automatic text when entering the automatic text due to the existence of a blind spot.”

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The occurrence of liability for damages (1) The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that the structure is in a state of failing to meet safety requirements ordinarily required for its use;

Determination of whether such safety has been met must be made on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the relevant structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on January 14, 2005