1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. Basic facts

A. At around 14:00 on July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff was seated over the floor of the chaired person who does not receive any light from the D (hereinafter “instant amusement”) operated by the Defendant located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant entertainment”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as ambl, ambl, and amblock (hereinafter “instant injury”) due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The author, who was placed in the entertainment room of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was a chair without being able to do so. The floor of the entertainment room of the instant case was in a state that does not have the safety of the said facility.

As a result, the Plaintiff sustained the injury of the instant case while sitting in the chair. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,679,242 for medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the foregoing accident, KRW 1,229,270 for lost earnings during the duration of hospitalization, KRW 1,00,00 for consolation money, KRW 1,00 for consolation money.

B. We examine the judgment, it is not sufficient to view that the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 submitted by the plaintiff showed that the situation of the entertainment room of this case, such as the floor condition of the entertainment room of this case, and the shape of the person's body, etc. of this case, had a particularly high risk of exceeding the users due to lack of safety that should have been prepared as the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, a fiber was installed on the entire floor of the entertainment room of this case, and all kinds of softs or cut-offs could not occur. It is only recognized as a circumstance in which the author of this case did not have any special damage or alteration. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff.