1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 7-2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 5, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the arguments.

The Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Corporation") is managing and operating the "B" of the first floor of the building located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by being entrusted by Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On January 20, 2009, the Management Agency awarded a contract to the Defendant for construction work, such as B’s boiler repair, with the total construction cost of KRW 1,252,00,000 and the construction period from February 9, 2009 to February 20, 2009.

The details of the Defendant’s contracted construction work include “fluor-type Stove boiler (one ton boiler), customs work, maintenance of safety equipment inspection (safety valves, electricity, burning), adjustment of burners and burning inspection, maintenance of water supply control devices, inspection of regular inspection assistance, inspection of regular inspection assistance, inspection of trial operation and operation,” and “string replacement of smoke-type boiler (3 ton boiler), replacement replacement replacement, related replacement assembly construction, repair of internal fire repair, repair of water supervision, and other repair works, and assembly operation,” etc.

C. The Defendant ordered C to perform the above contracted construction work, and accordingly C staff D et al. performed the customs construction work of each boiler from February 10, 2009 to February 17, 2009.

At around 09:00 on February 17, 2009, E affiliated with the Seoul Energy Management Corporation's branch opened each boiler of this case, while the employees of the Management Corporation (in charge of boiler management duties) were present, E conducted regular inspections on the state of corrosion, melting condition, rupture, transformation condition, condition of attachment of safety devices, attachment of accessory devices, etc., and judged its suitability.

C Employees re-prefabricated each part of the boilers of this case after regular inspection.

around 09:00 on February 17, 2009, the Defendant G’s employees “after finishing the construction of each boiler and making a report from the Defendant.”