1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,780,392 as well as to the plaintiff on October 2014.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. 1) The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be based on whether the installer and manager of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da16328, Oct. 28, 1994). In general, health care providers, etc. are obliged to secure facilities and equipment so as not to cause any hazards to users and to take into account the safety of customers.

The instant autonomous committee, which manages health engines, had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of users’ accidents by blocking electricity and blocking electricity, after blocking all of the health engines prior to blocking electricity, or attaching a notice stating that a person who used a string machine is not using a string machine, prior to blocking electricity, or notifying him/her of whether a person who used a string machine is using a string machine, or taking measures to prevent the occurrence of users’ accidents by blocking electricity and blocking electricity.

Nevertheless, the instant autonomous committee did not perform its duty as above.

If so, the instant fitness was in a state that it did not have safety ordinarily according to its intended purpose.