1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is due to the participation.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is a company running various construction businesses, and the Defendant was a person who manufactured various bridges with the trademark called “F,” and the Defendant’s Intervenor was a company that took over all the comprehensive rights and obligations with respect to the business of manufacturing a bridge from the Defendant.

B. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 8 working-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat

C. At around 08:30 on June 17, 2016, the daily worker C, who was employed by the Plaintiff, was in the course of performing the construction of the steel retaining wall on one of the legs constructed at the construction site of the new apartment (hereinafter “the instant bridge”), and was in the course of performing the construction of the steel retaining wall on the said bridge at the construction site of the instant apartment at the port of port (hereinafter “the instant bridge”). At around 08:30, there was an accident where one internal bridge, which regulates the height of the instant bridge, fells with the floor on the wind, thereby causing an injury, such as extreme stimul on the right shoulder (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed with C to the effect that it will not impose any liability on the other party in the future with respect to the instant accident (including hospital expenses of KRW 6,836,440). On the same day, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40,000 to C, while paying hospital expenses to the hospital where H was treated around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists, the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including paper numbers) as a whole, or as a whole, of video and pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the instant bridge.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the manufacturer of the instant bridge, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff under the Product Liability Act, namely, the amount equivalent to the agreed amount paid by the Plaintiff to C.

3. Determination

(a) A manufacturer who manufactures and sells goods is expected to take into account the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of distribution in terms of the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the goods.