[손해배상(기)] 항소[각공2003.12.10.(4),714]
Whether department stores have the duty of care to investigate the risks on their own and notify the consumers of the risks of diesel products containing difficulty drugs (negative)
In a situation where information on the physical risks of diesel products containing Danyac or glucentan is not generally known at home and abroad, it is limited to providing a single distribution place to sell the diesel of this case in the case of the department stores, and in a situation where diesels were sold at the food stores across the country as well as the department stores, it cannot be said that a duty of care is recognized only for a single luxy department store. Moreover, in the case of the importing company, as long as the inspection procedures required legally at the time of import and sale have been conducted, it cannot be said that the department store itself has a duty of care to investigate the risks of diesels on its own and inform consumers of such risks.
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Germany and two others (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Law Firm shopping Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Ful, Attorneys Lee Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
October 14, 2003
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff Self-Governing Province the amount of KRW 1,175,59,550, KRW 20,000 per annum from April 14, 2001 to the rendering of the instant judgment, and KRW 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), the fact inquiry results to the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and the whole purport of arguments.
A. On April 14, 2001, the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “Defendant Bar shopping”) purchased one diesel box (hereinafter “instant diesel box”) which is the manufacturer company’s Ja Ethmp in the food department of the department store, which was used as a raw material in the name of the product imported by the Defendant Youngnam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) at the food department of the department store; the product name of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”); the type of the product; the place of origin of the company; the manufacturer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. purchased the diesel box (hereinafter “instant diesel box”).
B. On the same day, the Plaintiff German on the same day, who is the Plaintiff German, Lee Jin-hee, was used as the wind to drink the instant diesel on the same day, and moved the diesel to the hospital. However, due to the lack of oxygen in a qualitative condition, there was a obscinary disorder, such as the damage of the obscinic brain, the scinary scinary scinary scination, the left-hand scinary scinary scinary, etc.
C. On the other hand, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded on October 4, 2001 that, in cases where a block contained in the World Cup occurred, children drinking the diesel in the U.S., and that, around October 23, 2001, a combination of glusium products contained in the glusium (Konyac) or glusiums, a combination of glusiums, can cause physical risks to children and the elderly, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration of Korea also took measures to warn consumers, recover, import, and sell the blusium products, and in accordance with the above conclusion on October 23, 201, Korea Food and Drug Administration of Korea also took measures to prohibit the importation of glusium or glusium products in the form of no more than 4.5cm contained in the glusium or glusium.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion
The plaintiffs are distributors with a high level of consumer designation and are in the position of collecting a certain ratio according to their sales profits, and therefore, they are externally responsible for the management of distribution. Thus, the defendant company has the duty of care to take appropriate measures to promote the use of the goods so that consumers can prevent accidents by promoting the use of the goods, and the defendant company has the duty of care to collect and judge domestic and foreign information on food safety as the importer of the diesel of this case, and to promote the safety of food at the time of sale and to provide information to prevent accidents by promoting the safety of food at the time of sale. However, although the above defendants have the duty of care to prevent accidents by promoting the safety of food, the above defendants' tort committed the above duty of care and caused the above property damage to the plaintiff reader, and caused mental damage to the plaintiffs, and they seek compensation against the defendants.
B. The case holding that since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants knew or could have known the existence of the risks as alleged by the Plaintiffs at the time of import of the diesel scrap, it is not sufficient to recognize the existence of causation between the defects of the diesel itself and the occurrence of the instant accident caused by the Plaintiff’s exclusive disposal of the diesel, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other relation between the occurrence of the instant diesel accident, and the Defendant Company, the importer of the instant diesel product, as well as the Plaintiff’s domestic and foreign sales department of the instant diesel product, after requesting the inspection of the safety of the diesel product and the Defendant’s sale of the instant diesel product to the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and there is no other reason to acknowledge the risks of the instant diesel product’s sale of the instant diesel product by entering the matters required by the Food and Drug Administration after obtaining lawful import licenses and customs clearance procedures, and the Plaintiff Company, the importer of the instant diesel product, on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the risks of the instant diesel product’s sale of the instant diesel product.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.
Judges Sohn (Presiding Judge)