2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the operation of the boiler of the instant case was suspended, or the Defendant suffered damage therefrom, due to the defect in design, indication, safety, manufacturing, or installation of the boiler of the instant case or the lack of capacity of the boiler of the Defendant compared to the size of the Defendant’s vinyl.

B. As to this, the first instance court held that ① the heater installed within a vinyl at the time of the appraisal and on-site inspection of the instant case (eight to six) was destroyed and damaged to the winter wave (eight to eight) and, if the heater was not destroyed, the normal hot water circulation would have been observed. However, there was no specific assertion and proof by the Defendant on the time of damage and cause. ② The reason why the heat heat was damaged normally, and ② the reason why the heat heat was discharged from the heat heat was reduced, or when the boiler was not operated due to the lack of mination within the water tank for any reason, the Defendant neglected to take water in the water tank at the time of the water tank. Comprehensively taking account of the above, the Defendant’s failure to remove the water reservoir at the time of the instant boiler, and the Defendant’s failure to install the boiler at the time of the removal of the water tank at the time of the water tank at the time of the removal of the water tank at the time of the removal of the water tank at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s failure to remove it from the 3rd.