Cases concerning the duty of care in the sale of agrochemicals when selling agrochemicals to farmers;

In a case where a large-scale crop farmer filed a claim for damages against the seller of agricultural chemicals on the grounds that harvest has decreased due to harmful insects as a result of mixed spraying of agricultural chemicals, the case holding that the defendant has a duty of care not to give accurate explanation of the performance, method of use, etc. of the agricultural chemicals when he sells the agricultural chemicals to the plaintiff, and without without permission, as long as there are no clear standards as to whether large-scale or dance agricultural chemicals can be used in mixing with or spread the relevant agricultural chemicals, whether large-scale pine farmers, including the plaintiff, can do so, and whether or not there is any damage therefrom, etc.

Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other Plaintiffs, Attorneys Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na10587 delivered on November 18, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined together.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that, although the defendants asked the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do governor having jurisdiction over the place of selling agrochemicals, they failed to instruct or recommend the plaintiffs not to use the agrochemicals of this case mixed with large tree, or to explain the nature of the agrochemicals of this case, place of use, method of use, etc. in detail, they failed to perform the above duty of explanation, and thus, they will be affected by the decrease in harvest as a result of mixed use of the agrochemicals of this case, and they failed to perform the above duty of explanation. In light of Article 10 (1) of the Agrochemicals Control Act, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' request for an agrochemical dealer or importer of the agrochemicals of this case had no effect on the decrease in the quality of the agrochemicals of this case, since the plaintiffs' request for explanation that the agrochemicals seller or importer of this case had no effect on the decrease in the quality of agrochemicals of the agrochemicals of this case, it did not have a duty of explanation or explanation as to each of this case.

2. The court below, as recognized by the court below, has no duty of care to provide accurate explanation about the performance, method of use, etc. of the pesticide at the time of selling the pesticide of this case to the plaintiffs who are farmers, and it should not give directions or recommendations as to the use of the pesticide without the knowledge of its performance. Accordingly, the court below's determination that the defendant cannot be held with the above duty of care, duty of explanation, duty of care, or duty of care, or duty of care, cannot be held to the defendant who is a seller of the pesticide, on the sole basis of the reasoning that there is no possibility of expectation of expectation of an agrochemical's duty of care or duty of care.

3. However, in light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant recommended the plaintiffs to spread large trees by mixing three kinds of agrochemicals of this case with the ratio of 1:1 and 1, which constitutes an instruction of wrong method of use. As such, the harm occurred, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the damage caused by the violation of this provision would decrease large harvest of the plaintiffs, is not acceptable even if it is based on the evidence of the plaintiffs' transfer. In light of the records, the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to causation with the negligence of pesticide dealers, such as the assertion of the arguments, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The theory of lawsuit is not acceptable as it is a tree of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, or based on facts contrary to the facts acknowledged by the court below.

Therefore, even if there were errors as seen above with regard to the defendant's duty of care as the defendant's agricultural chemical seller, this does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the conclusion of the court below that rejected the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justifiable. The arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)