1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, while having been accommodated in Andong-dong-si DaMoel 506, the toilet was operated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to replace the previous Gu on July 30, 2014, because the toilet was not operated by the toilet, and that the Defendant would replace the previous Gu directly while leading the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff himself was trying to change the balle to the toilet wall, and abandoned and abandoned the balle to change the balle to change the balle to the balle, and then found the balle to balle to change the body weight of the plaintiff, making the balle to fall short of the plaintiff's body weight, making the plaintiff's balle to turn off the balle to the change, and accordingly, the plaintiff suffered injury to the balle to the right upper balle to the upper balle to

(2) The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s assertion in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act (i.e., medical treatment costs of KRW 1 million, KRW 1400,000, KRW 100, and KRW 5 million as part of the daily income), and (ii) is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s assertion in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act, as it violated the duty of safety consideration, such as providing the Plaintiff with a bridge so that the Plaintiff can replace the electric tool without any physical injury. However, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the incomplete performance of the lodging contract (violation of the duty of protection) under Article 390 of the Civil Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion also occurred

Even if the Plaintiff attempted to replace a changeer with the Defendant’s own judgment without requesting the safety equipment, etc., it is deemed that the physical weight was generated on hand, which cannot be deemed as being produced for a purpose suitable to tank the human body weight, and that the Plaintiff’s total negligence was attributable to the Plaintiff’s total negligence, and it is deemed that it was due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of care for safety or the duty of protection.