1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are acknowledged as being in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged as being comprehensive of the whole purport of the pleadings as to the entry of Gap evidence 1 and the fact inquiry into the Dobong chief of the fire department of this court.

A. The Defendant is a person who conducts public bath business under the trade name called D bath in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant bath”).

B. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff suffered losses from cutting down at the bottom of the right breath of the bath of this case, which was cut over within the bath of the instant bath at around the morning (11:05).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 2. The assertion and determination of the instant accident

A. The Defendant, who operates the Plaintiff’s alleged public bath, has a duty of care to take appropriate safety measures, such as installing facilities to prevent the use of the floor so that the users can not get out of the instant bath, and the removal of water equipment, non-loaking sculptures, and non-loaking goods on the floor from time to time, and the management of drainage.

After completing a bath in the bath of this case, the Plaintiff was faced with the instant accident by going to the shower with a place where it was kept in front of the door, and going to the shower, taking a non-refluence and a non-refluence, which remains on the floor, and taking the instant accident. This is an accident caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages totaling KRW 38,743,635 (=property damages totaling KRW 8,743,635) and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1: (a) at the time of the instant accident, the floor of the instant bath was in a state that does not have safety to be ordinarily equipped for its intended purpose.

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff, the business owner of the instant bath, violated the duty to protect the safety of the customer.

The specific grounds for the determination are as follows:

Plaintiff

The result of the personal examination alone is that of this case.