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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

A. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the production of heat tanks (tanks storing high temperature water for district heating) among the construction works for the heat supply facilities, for the design and pumps of heat tanks in the process of installing the facilities, for the production and supply of heat heat heat, and for the production and supply of electrical heating equipment.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff designed and produced four heat tanks, and manufactured and supplied them to the Defendant, respectively, 8 heat circulation pumps and 4 electricity heating pumps.

C. The Defendant installed the heat tanks, pumps, and electrical heating equipment supplied by the Plaintiff, and designed pipes connected thereto. D.

The heat line of the electricity heating apparatus supplied by the Plaintiff from October 5, 2010 to July 22, 201 (hereinafter “instant accident”) caused an accident that occurred in seven times (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the defect repair cost of KRW 42,460,00 (including surtax; hereinafter the same shall apply) was equivalent to KRW 42,460,00.

E. On January 18, 2012, the Defendant claimed KRW 42,460,000 of the defect repair cost as above against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”), which concluded the defect repair insurance contract related to the instant contract, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance notified the Plaintiff on February 8, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 6, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 4-1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not mislead the Plaintiff as to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant regarding the instant accident is nonexistent, since the instant accident occurred due to the fault of pipinging that the Defendant installed the pipe connected to the electrical heating machine supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and distributed the pipe in the air to the electric heating machine, and that the air was collected in the pipe and flow into the electric heating machine.

B. The defendant did not err in relation to the accident of this case.