1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 2016, at around 11:30, the Plaintiff suffered an injury caused by a pasian (Thak-gu 1 Daegu), among those fright restaurants operated by Defendant B, which were frighted in the upper state of the flag at the C Haak-si restaurant operated by Defendant B.

B. Around November 2015, Defendant B entered into an insurance contract with Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant B with the content that Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. may directly claim the payment of the insurance money to Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. in a case where Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant B would impair others’ body while operating the said restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although Defendant B, while running a restaurant, has a duty of care to prevent mixing of foreign substances with the food provided to customers, he neglected to do so, and thereby, the Plaintiff was inflicted an injury on a safafafafafafafafaf by having the safafafafafaf by having the safafafaf. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay medical expenses of KRW 6670 million, future medical expenses of KRW 36 million, lost income of KRW 420,000, consolation money of KRW 10,000,000, and Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff was injured by a spawn while drinking spawn at Defendant B’s restaurant is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff contained stone or other foreign substances in food as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there was injury to the plaintiff by having the plaintiff enter a stone or foreign substance with the care of the defendant B, is without merit, without examining any further.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.