1. On May 26, 2016, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) was an accident in which the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) was able to keep a far away from the horse riding from C located at Silung-si around 10:00.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a riding club with the trade name of “D” in Silti City C.

The defendant was a person who loaded horse riding in the above riding course.

B. At around 10:00 on May 26, 2016, the Defendant suffered from the 111st scarcitys in a scarcity with the horses (Ma) provided by the married Plaintiff at the above horse riding track, and incurred a scarcity of stability emission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5, 15, and Eul 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is not liable for damages, since the defendant fully responsible for safety accidents that may occur during the riding course use, and the plaintiff agreed not to claim compensation on the side of the riding course.

According to Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the defendant signed a written pledge stating the contents as alleged by the plaintiff.

However, as of June 2, 2015, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant was at the time when riding riding was commenced on the instant riding track, and that the content thereof is printed in the same letter, the term “safety accident” as stated in the said pledge means an accident that occurred without complying with the instructions of the instructor or safety manager, and it is difficult to view that the term “safety accident” as mentioned in the said pledge means an accident that occurs due to the failure to comply with the instructions of the instructor or safety manager, and that the accident that occurred due to the negligence on the part of the riding track, such as

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff, who manages and operates a riding club, shall ensure that the students go out of the horse under the instruction of the instructor, and if that is not, the Plaintiff, despite his duty of care to assign a person holding an appropriate certificate of qualification as a safety personnel, has a duty of care to prevent the accident, but the Defendant alone left alone to riding.

The proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care and the occurrence of the instant accident can be recognized.