A. The Plaintiff is a person who cultivates and sells multi-land plants by installing a plastic house in the location of the wife population C in the tolerance-si, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells hot gas.

B. In May 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the sale and installation of hot blasts, and around that time, the Defendant installed the Plaintiff’s greenhouse greenhouse gas (hereinafter “instant hot blast”).

The plaintiff paid 8,000,000 won to the defendant out of 20,000,000 won, and the remaining 12,000,000 won was paid to the defendant as a subsidy for the efficient project for the use of agricultural and fishery energy.

C. On January 31, 2017, around 8:00 a.m., a fire was caused by the control inside the instant hot wave, and some of the Plaintiff’s greenhouse greenhouses were destroyed and the accident that caused the fire (hereinafter “the instant fire accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties' assertion is that the fire accident of this case is caused by the defect of the hot wind, and the defendant, who is the manufacturer of the hot wind of this case, has the duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff under tort liability or product liability under the Civil Act or the Product Liability Act.

The defendant asserts that the fire accident of this case is not caused by the defect of the hot wind of this case, but caused by the joint line and water leakage of the electric power boat installed in a vinyl house. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination

A. We examine the occurrence of liability for damages, and comprehensively examine the aforementioned evidence and the facts acknowledged, and comprehensively examine the results of the fact-finding conducted by the chief of the fire station of the court of this case to the purport of the whole pleadings. At the time of the fire accident of this case, the Plaintiff was using the hot wind of this case according to normal operation, and the date after the fire accident of this case occurred, is two days after the date of occurrence