2. B

3. C.

4. D;

[Judgment of the court below]

2. Stock company F;

3. G stock company.

All appeals by the plaintiffs against Defendant F and Defendant G Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs, Defendant F, and Defendant G Co., Ltd. are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant E

A. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The environmental business team of Defendant E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E”) added the amount of solution, such as yellow acid, to be used for experiments to two air conditioners of this case, which are intended to use sea water or clean water, and used it until July 2012, and disposed of it through Defendant F and G corporation.

(2) The Plaintiffs purchased the instant heavy air cooling machine from Defendant G Co., Ltd., and attempted to use one of them by linking it to the high-speed air cooling machine, which is a food machine.

(3) However, the plaintiffs did not operate properly the connected cooling machine, and the plaintiffs suffered the accident of this case where, in the process of separating the cooling machine connected to the early high-speed air cooling machine to replace it to another cooling machine, they remain in the cooling machine, and the plaintiffs suffered damages such as pictures, etc. in the cooling machine.

B. According to the above facts, it is almost impossible for the general public to expect that the sulfur still remains in the cooling season using sulfur, unlike the original purpose, in the cooling season of this case where the sea water or clean water should be used. As such, the business operator who disposes of the cooling cooling machine using yellow acid using yellow acid, has a duty of care to inform a third party of the possibility of washing the sulfur remaining in the cooling season at a safe level, or of the possibility that sulfur residues remains in the cooling season.

Therefore, as long as Defendant E disposes of the cooling machine without notifying a third party that he could safely remove sulfur oxide or remain sulfur in the cooling machine of this case, the above Defendant’s tort liability can be recognized.

C. In addition, the plaintiffs purchased the coolant of this case and then connected and separated it to the early high-speed air cooling machine according to ordinary usage, and do not seem to have tried to confirm and repair the internal structure of the plaintiffs by demolishing the coolant of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs used the cooling machine of this case for an unforeseeable method or usage beyond ordinary usage, and as long as the coolant remains in the cooling machine, it may inflict an injury on the users of the sulfur flow and cooling machine or its repair at any time, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was no possibility of predicting the accident of this case, or that there was no proximate causal relation between the above defendant's tort and the accident of this case.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court did not accept the Plaintiffs’ claim against the said Defendant on the ground that the predictability of the instant accident of Defendant E or proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the tort was not recognized. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the predictability and proximate causal relation in tort, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal against the Defendants, the lower court determined that, insofar as it is difficult to view that the Defendants knew or could have known that sulfur oxide remains in the cooling season of this case, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ duty of care to remove sulfur oxide by washing the coolant of this case. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the duty of care

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the claim against Defendant E is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals against Defendant F and Defendant G are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Cho Jae-sik in charge

Justices Noh Jeong-hee