1. As to the grounds of appeal on the part of Defendant A, B, G, and I’s occupational and practical ideas

A. As to the grounds of appeal concerning Defendant A, G, and I’s work performance, Defendant A’s grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the duty of care as a manufacturer of chemicals; and (b) the lower court, on the grounds the same as indicated in its reasoning, conducted mutual order and organizational change in order with Company E and Limited

In general, AL (the first product name was “AP” but was changed to “AL” at the end of 2003.

Defendant A who seeks to manufacture and sell the above chemical product (hereinafter referred to as “AL”) shall thoroughly verify its safety at the level of science and technology at the time of supply of the above chemical product, and shall minimize the risk likely to occur due to any defect in the relevant chemical product through research and study, and if it is unclear as to whether the risk has been properly removed, he/she shall be obliged to pay the duty of care not to distribute the above chemical product before removal of the risk to the extent that safety is sufficiently secured.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of the duty of care and the principle of trust to negligence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B) In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its holding, whether the AL’s raw material change was involved in around October 200, and whether each labeling phrase was used without any empirical data around October 2003, 2003, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, received the Defendant A’s continued report from around October 1997 on the promotion of the change of the AL’s raw material.