beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court makes a supplementary decision as to the part asserted by the plaintiff as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The gist of the grounds of appeal was as follows: (a) the Defendant was aware of the structure of the previous boiler when installing the boiler in this case; (b) so, if it was found that there was no expansion tank in GJ H of GJ Ga, it could sufficiently be said that there was an expansion tank on GJ I or the rooftop of the building, etc.; and (c) even if it was possible to find an expansion tank in GJ I Ga and block the pipes connected thereto at the time, it did not ask C to the location of the expansion tank, but did not make efforts to confirm the location of the expansion tank, such as visiting GJ I, and did not inform C of the failure to operate the boiler before blocking the pipes from the extension tank to the expansion tank; and (d) it can be deemed that it was a negligence of neglecting the duty of care required for the Defendant.
B. On the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court, the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, and the following circumstances acknowledged by some testimony of the witness L of the first instance court, namely, ① Gdong 1 was completely separated from Gdong H in which the boiler of this case was installed, and a separate household resides in a separate household, and it seems that it was very unusual that the sloping tank connected to Gdong H was installed under Gdong 1, a separate household’s exclusive part of the household. The Defendant, the boiler installer, could have easily anticipated such structure at the time of installing the boiler of this case. ② In particular, at the time of the Defendant’s installation of the boiler of this case, the previous boiler was already removed, such as the removal of pipes.