The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) does not cause any injury to the remainder of the victim who neglected his/her duty of care in the course of performing his/her duties

2. Determination

(a) Where a certain space is provided for business purposes and access to that place becomes possible, a manager of that place shall conduct a reasonable level of inspection to ensure that there is no dangerous condition and remove risks, and where it is not possible to remove it due to inevitable circumstances, a manager shall have the duty of care to warn the customer by installing a “reasonable level of guidance signs” that would enable the customer to easily understand the danger.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① C Co., Ltd. is an enterprise dismantling or repairing a motor vehicle; there were many vehicles subject to scrapping at the site of the business site; and the vehicles seeking repair were parked in the maintenance site through the site where the vehicle subject to scrapping was parked; ② At the time of the accident in this case, the construction of drainage was carried out; ② due to the occurrence of the accident in this case, there had been approximately 1.2m in length, the width, about 1m in depth, about 60m in depth; ③ the Defendant, who was in charge of the above site, did not install a signboard that warns the danger around the surrounding area; ④ In light of the fact that the victim’s vehicle that was in charge of management of the above site, caused injury to the victim, such as brain mic, etc. requiring treatment for about two weeks, the fact that the Defendant neglected to perform his duty of care and caused injury to the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

(c)

As shown below, the Defendant has taken measures to protect customers by means of breaking the Gu and breaking the pipe on the Gu, as shown in the following photographs.