1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiffs' assertion added to this case, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs did not indicate the warning phrase that the instant fire was likely to occur when using the instant vessel in a high damp toilet, rather than due to the defect of the instant vessel, and even if it was caused by the use in a high damp toilet, the Defendant did not indicate the warning phrase that the instant vessel might have been used in a high damp place, which is, Article 2(2)(c) of the Product Liability Act.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the fire of this case, since it falls under the "defect in indication" as referred to in item.

B. Even in cases where a manufacturing or design defect is not recognized, if a manufacturer, etc. fails to make a reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that would have been likely to have reduced or avoided damage or risks caused by the product, the manufacturer, etc. may be held liable for tort against the defect in such indication. In determining whether such defect exists, the determination shall be made in light of social norms, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the product’s characteristics, ordinary usage mode, user expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, user awareness of the risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by users.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da22092 Decided April 10, 2014, etc.). C.

In light of the above legal principles, the above evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire argument can be considered as follows.