1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D and E are the siblingss of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the operator of 861 O2, Taecheon-ro, Taecheon-ro 861.

B. At around 20:10 on December 30, 201, Plaintiff A: (a) skid from gro 2 skids (the 628m in total length, 83m in average width, 172m in front, average slope 27m in average slope) of the skids inside the skids (hereinafter “skidskids of this case”) in the upper right side of the skids.

However, the F, who was getting off and getting out of Skis, caused the Plaintiff by shocking the Plaintiff A, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as the Habama.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 14, witness F's testimony, plaintiff A's newspaper result, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the occurrence of liability for damages

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, as the owner and manager of the skiing ground of this case, has a duty of care to manage the slovas surface so that the surface of the slovas does not appear for the safety of users, and to refrain from using the slovas course as the slovas ground of this case.

Nevertheless, as the defendant neglected this and caused the accident of this case, it is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the same damages as stated in the purport of the claim pursuant to Article 758 or 750 of the Civil Code.

B. (i) Whether there is a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act or not means that a structure is in a state of failing to meet the normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the installer and custodian of the structure is generally in proportion to the risk of the structure.