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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Parts] The Defendant asserts that the monthly average electricity fee of 1,908,350 won due to the operation of the boiler in December 2012 is not a fee for boiler 3, but a fee for boiler 4, and the electricity fee of this case includes the operation of the electric temperature waterer irrelevant to the boiler of this case and the volume of electricity consumed in the building works. At the same time, there was a very low temperature compared to the usual year, and the defect of the building itself damages the heating efficiency. Thus, the Defendant’s deception cannot be deemed as deceiving the Plaintiff on the ground that the monthly average electricity fee due to the operation of the boiler of this case was significantly different from the original Defendant’s 128,142 won.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged through the above evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, the electricity charges imposed on the Plaintiff, including the part of the power generated regardless of the boiler, but most of them seems to have occurred due to the operation of the boiler 3, and the circumstances that were harsh due to the characteristics of the boiler products, were inappropriate in view of the judgment on the volume of consumption power, and there was no specific defect in the building where the boiler was installed, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant at any time when the electricity charges were imposed higher than the expected amount, and the Defendant’s employees visited the boiler installation site of the boiler, and confirmed the operation of the boiler and the status of the boiler, but the volume of consumption was no longer decreased, it is reasonable to view that the monthly average monthly electricity charges incurred by the operation of the boiler of the boiler of this case had a significant difference with the original Defendant’s explanation and evidence No. 2.