1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except where "J" in the third page 12 of the first instance court's decision is "E", and therefore, it is also accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) In addition to the evidence submitted by the court, it is difficult to find that the river area of this case, including the water area in which the accident of this case occurred, appeared to be suitable for water play due to its appearance, and there was no warning sign, and thus, it could not be anticipated that there was a deep depth for accommodation users. Nevertheless, it is not recognized that the Defendant corporation informed the deceased’s daily activities of the deceased that water play without relief equipment in the river area of this case. However, it is difficult to find that the Defendant corporation violated the duty to protect accommodation users by merely guiding the deceased corporation that water play in the river area of this case, such as the water play in the river area of this case. In addition, in the case of natural river, such as the river of this case, there are many places without a fixed depth of water depth, and the fact that water color is deep, and it is difficult to view the Defendants’ claims to dismiss the river area of this case as the river area of this case as the river of this case, or as the river area of this case, it was installed in proportion to the situation of the plaintiffs’s request.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendants is dismissed.