1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds alleged by the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance do not differ from that alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are reviewed together with the defendant's assertion, the defendant's argument is rejected, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff'

Accordingly, the reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows: “Isia consistently stated that “Isia was an object of the original form of the floor size of the hand floor of the court of first instance.” The witness B of the court of first instance also discovered the explosives of this case, “Isia was an object of the original form of the hand floor size of the court of first instance.” The Plaintiff’s father C at the time of the first discovery of the explosives of this case was similar lids.

“The testimony is made, which is consistent with the external size of the large-scale mine, and this is consistent with this.” On the other hand, Chapter 5 added "In addition, the explosion process of the explosive of this case which the plaintiff stated is somewhat inconsistent with the ordinary explosion process of large-scale mines. However, as seen earlier, since the accident of this case occurred and it was a pure explosion that has not been anticipated for a long time, it is difficult for the plaintiff as the injured party to accurately memory the circumstances, it is likely that the plaintiff's statement about the explosion process of this case is different from the actual situation. Since the explosive of this case has been left for a long time, and there is a possibility of a change in the long time condition or explosion, it cannot be concluded that it is not a reason to conclude that it is not a lightning of this case."