손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 1, 2012, when Plaintiff A operates a restaurant with the trade name of H restaurant, Plaintiff A requested the Defendant to install gas pipeline facilities at a height of 20 cm in height. After completing the construction, the Defendant requested the Defendant to install gas pipeline facilities at a height of 20 cm. The explosion accident caused by gas leakage.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The Korea Gas Safety Corporation presumed the cause of the accident of this case to have been explosiond by an influence source after gas leakage, as the gas blocking valve outside the gas of this case was opened by the forces.
C. Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A’s mother I died, and Plaintiff A sustained an injury.
The Plaintiffs inherited I as their children.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment that the accident of this case occurred due to the following negligence of the defendant, i.e., ① opening a blocking valve at the time of the installation of the gas pipeline immediately before the occurrence of the accident of this case, ② failure to conduct a proper inspection of the gas pipeline despite the plaintiff Gap's request, ③ connected with the gas pipeline beyond the separation distance to be observed while connecting the combustion in the gas pipeline, ④ failure to take a finishing measure after the removal of the combustion, etc., the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case.
On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone opened a blocking valve (1). It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant did not check the gas pipeline (2) and that the defendant did not properly take measures to prevent gas leakage after the removal of the burner (4). The accident of this case is attributable to such circumstances even if the defendant had connected the burner beyond the separation distance (3).