[2] The case holding that a herb druggist who sold herb substances containing toxic substances is liable to compensate for damages on the ground of violation of his duty to explain

[2] The case holding that, when a herb druggist sells 'the primary 'the herb druggist' that contains toxic substance to a customer, it is obvious that the herb druggist might cause fatal hazard to human life when he sells it, and that the herb druggist might not cause fatal hazard to human life, in light of the fact that the herb druggist might call attention to the fact that the toxicity and life of the above herb substance at the time of sale, and that the month necessary for being toxic enough to cause harm to such toxicity is limited to the minimum explanation about time, volume and degree of dilution, and degree of dilution, and that the husband died as a result of the buyer's taking advantage of her husband at a time when the total purchase was carried out, the herb druggist could not have caused a large quantity of mental injury to the above herb druggist, in light of the fact that the herb druggist would not have caused a large quantity of mental injury to the above herb druggist, even if the purchaser had explained it to the least extent to be dilution, and that it would not have caused a large quantity of mental injury to the above herb.

1. In full view of the evidence at the time, the court below found that Plaintiff 1’s her husband’s her husband’s leg was low, and that Plaintiff 1’s her husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’.

2. A herb druggist is allowed to sell medicines even if a person, other than a pharmacy founder, pursuant to Articles 37(2) and 36 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 5959, Mar. 31, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply). At the request of a patient, he may sell medicines by mixing them with the prescription listed in the accepted herb medicine form or prescription of herb doctor. However, for sale, it is difficult for the general public to recognize the academic background higher than high school graduate pursuant to Articles 21 through 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16356, May 24, 199) and the career of engaging in the herb treatment business for not less than five years, pass an examination for herb druggist which test necessary knowledge of herb treatment and functions in the practice, and since the subject of such examination includes the name, nature, and usage of medicines listed in the elementary medicine, etc., the extent of sale and efficacy of medicines contained in the drug medication or drug medication, and it is more difficult.

In light of the purport of the herb druggist system and the characteristics of herb drugs, a herb druggist is a person with professional knowledge of the ingredients, efficacy, and usage of herb drugs. Thus, in selling herb drugs to the general public which may cause fatal results to the human body according to what kind of usage or dosage is, in accordance with the principle of good faith, he/she shall be deemed to have a duty to inform the buyer in detail of the efficacy, risk, safe usage, etc., so that the buyer, etc. has an opportunity to choose and decide on whether or not to use herb drugs or how to use herb drugs. If the buyer, etc., of herb drugs by failing to fulfill such duty, causes danger to his/her life or body by selecting a wrong usage method, it shall be deemed an unlawful act that infringes on the right to select or decide such selection or dosage.

In addition, in case where there is a proximate causal relation between such unlawful act, life, and physical danger of a person who takes place, a herb druggist is liable to compensate for all damages caused by the occurrence of the occurrence of the occurrence of the occurrence, but in case of not so, it is only possible to seek compensation for the loss that the person who takes place loses the opportunity to choose and becomes unable to exercise his right to self-determination as to whether he takes or not the method of taking clothes (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da60953, Apr. 15, 1994).

3. As acknowledged by the record of this case, "the initial drug," which is an issue of this case, contains toxic substance such as her husband's death, and thus, it is stipulated that the defendant may manufacture them only at the manufacturing establishment by classifying them as items likely to be addicted under the provision on supply and demand of medicinal herbs and distribution management (No. 199-9 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare). In particular, her blick, pregnant woman, etc. should have approximately 2 liter meters of water in order to alleviate its toxicity and ordinarily, and her blick's blick content should have been sufficiently carried out with her name and blick, and thus, the defendant's duty to explain and blicker's life and blick's blick content would not have been widely known to the general public to the extent that the defendant's life and blick's blick content would not have been likely to cause any harm to the general public.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the duty to explain, inconsistent reasoning, or misunderstanding of facts as alleged.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)