채무부존재확인
1. With respect to the accident described in the attached Form “accident”, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. A. On November 2013, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of electricity sets, wholesale business, and retail business, manufactured electric temperature retail business (the model name of “the temperature of 100”, “the self-regulatory safety confirmation report number: XH0701-1305, hereinafter “instant product”).
The product of this case consists of hot water sets, hot water storage apparatus, and hot water protection connecting them.
B. From the end of January 2014, the Defendant suffered pictures using the instant product, which require approximately two weeks of treatment on the right chest and the right arms, among the locked persons using the instant product, and locked on April 9, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1-1, 2-2 evidence, Gap 6 evidence, Eul 2-1, 2-3 evidence, the purport of the whole of each video and pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion (the cause of counterclaim) used the instant product in a normal manner in compliance with the method of using it, but the Defendant took a image of the Defendant’s body, as there was a hot water that was far higher temperature than the designated temperature in the instant product, which was separated from the hot water tank installed by the pressure. Thus, the accident described in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred in the Plaintiff’s exclusive control area.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, a manufacturer, is liable to compensate for the total sum of KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 10,000,000, out of KRW 11,734,248, which are damages suffered by the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion (the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim) was that the connection between the hot water source and the hot water storage apparatus of the instant product cannot be deemed to be an area under the Plaintiff’s exclusive control, and the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence.
In addition, the product of this case is not defective because it satisfies safety standards.
Nevertheless, since the defendant is dissatisfied with this, it is against the plaintiff in relation to the accident of this case.