1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reference of the judgment of the court of first instance to “A” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “H”; and (b) the reference of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where partial expressions such as “A” and “additional judgment” are dismissed and added according to the plaintiffs’ assertion and new evidence.

2. Parts and additional judgments

A. Part 1 A) Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “after passing through the parking zone line” of No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 12, and each part of the “in the parking zone line” of No. 12 through No. 13 and “in the parking zone line of this case, the area inside the parking zone of this case, the point where the accident occurred, is a space where a vehicle is parked at all times, so it is difficult to remove snow in the zone within the parking zone line of this case while the vehicle is parked in the parking zone.”

B) The judgment of the court of first instance, which is a Z witness of the court of first instance, deemed that the deceased exceeded the parking space line near the entrance X5 and 6Ra of the apartment of this case, on the ground of the testimony, etc. of the Z of the witness of the court of first instance, which is a taxi engineer who landed the deceased. However, according to the result of the appraisal commission of the AB research institute of the court of first instance, the deceased is presumed to have been out of the above parking space line, and thus, it should be deleted as above. However, even if the place where the deceased exceeded is outside the above parking space line, there was no particular evidence to acknowledge that the management entity of the apartment of this case was negligent in performing the duty of care for safety management to the extent that is generally required by social norms under the limitation of human resources and property, so the above deletion does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance.