beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.The following shall be added to not more than 8 pages 8, 12, of the judgment of the court of first instance:
C) On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiffs asserted that the trial run at a water purification plant cannot be deemed to have been suspended due to the operation of a stop and facility even after the accident occurred due to the suspension of the trial, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statement and arguments as follows: ① a comprehensive trial run is divided into a non-regular driving, a sub-working, and a continuous sub-working for about three months; ② a comprehensive driving plan provides for the detailed contents to be examined in relation to the process of treatment of active carbon at the time of each stage; ② a comprehensive driving plan provides for the detailed contents to be examined in relation to the treatment of active carbon at the time of the trial operation at each stage; ② a comprehensive driving plan formulated for a water purification plant, separate from the treatment quantity and treatment quantity of active carbon at the time of the operation; and the treatment quantity exceeding 160 cubic meters at the time of 40 cubic meters prior to the suspension of operation; and the treatment quantity exceeding 160 cubic meters at the time of the operation at each stage.
Comprehensively taking account of the following, it can be evaluated as an important part of the trial run with respect to the treatment process of active carbon, and it cannot be deemed that the whole trial run has performed the test run with the production of purified water by performing the test operation with the exception of the process. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
Type 9. 14.