1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,170,50 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from June 18, 2019 to September 3, 2019.

1. Occurrence of and restrictions on liability for damages;

A. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the overall purport of the arguments.

1) On August 15, 2016, the Defendant is the operator of the Category D bath located in C in emulculation. 2) The Plaintiff suffered injury to knee in the left-hand side of the air conditioners, such as knee knee knee, etc., at the entrance of the air conditioners (hereinafter referred to as “instant plate”) when he takes a bath in the said bath (hereinafter referred to as the “instant bath”) and takes a cryp to the cooling in order to enter the cooling, while he takes a bath in the said bath on or around 08:30 on August 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

3) The instant plate was not treated as a slick slick, and there was no facility capable of avoiding risks when it prevented or slicks from being slicking around, such as a railing. B. According to the facts found as above, it is reasonable to deem that the defect in the installation or preservation of the instant plate was the cause of the instant accident. As such, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant slicker, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident. (C) Since the instant slicker’s limitation on liability for damages was prepared with a common water source, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s attitude was reduced as well, and it appears that such measures were not sufficiently taken even if it was necessary to prevent the smoke, such as a slicking, entering the cooling, etc. around the instant slicker.