(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.6.19. 선고 2013구합25139 판결

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the manufacturing business, etc. of the wedding Day and produced and sold the instant products on the Port Date (the model name: B, certification number C, hereinafter referred to as the “instant products”). However, the Defendant was delegated by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy with the duties of conducting safety inspections and ordering the collection of products, etc. pursuant to Article 24 of the Framework Act on Product Safety and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. On July 9, 2013, the Defendant began to conduct the safety inspection of the 6th industrial products and requested the Korea Testing and Research Institute of Chemical Convergence (hereinafter referred to as the “Research Institute”), which is a testing and inspection institution, to conduct safety inspection on the instant products, etc. on August 12, 2013.

C. As a result of the safety investigation on August 21, 2013 on the instant product, the Institute judged that there was an error in finding out that there was an abnormal phenomenon at the end of the two shock days after the shock in the shock test to investigate shock (hereinafter referred to as “safety inspection result”).

D. Around August 26, 2013, the Defendant was notified by the Institute’s president of the results of the safety examination, and around August 30, 2013, the Defendant held a meeting among companies ineligible for the safety examination of the 6th industrial product. The Plaintiff raised an objection as follows: (a) the 6th anniversary of the 70th anniversary of the 70th anniversary of the 70th anniversary of the 2013-349 Notice of the 2013-349 Standard Industrial Products subject to the safety inspection (hereinafter the above notice is referred to as the “instant notice”); and (b) the Annex is called the 70th anniversary of the 70th anniversary of the 70th anniversary of the 2013-349 Standard Industrial Products subject to the safety inspection. The content of the Annex is the 1st attached hereto.

E. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant requested the president of the Research Center to re-testing the Plaintiff’s product, and received the notification of the assessment result that the Plaintiff did so on September 5, 2013, as a result of re-examination, to the extent that the Plaintiff did not raise gold on the cutting day or fall off on the day, etc.

F. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant held a relevant meeting at which the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Korean Product Safety Association, and the researcher-related parties attended and notified the Plaintiff of the result of re-examination.

G. On September 10, 2013, the Defendant held a Product Safety Advisory Committee to examine the Plaintiff’s civil petition while the members of the government, academic circles, legal circles, and civic groups attended. As a result, the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff’s civil petition is groundless.

H. On September 11, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on September 201, 2013 to collect and reverse the instant product distributed in the market on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet quality labelling standards, such as manufacturing date, address, telephone number, directions for use, etc., and refund, etc., on the ground that the fested end of the day after the shock of the instant product was ruptured on the cut day, or the flag or the flag was broken down on the cut day, or the flag was not set aside (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 11-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the end of the date of the safety examination of the instant product was rupture and failed to meet the internal shock standards. However, the safety requirements set out in the internal shock level on April 6, 4 of Annex 4 of the instant Annex, which serves as the basis for the safety examination, i.e., the standards that the instant product should not be golded, broken, or broken down on the cutting day after the internal shock test, can be deemed to have been classified into the cut day and the day day, and in the case of the day, it can be deemed that the instant product did not meet the above standards that should have a degree of falling short of the day off. However, it is nothing more than that a rupture occurred at the end of the day, which is part of the day. Accordingly, it is unlawful to determine that the instant product failed to meet the shock standards on the ground that it applied the provisions on the cut day to the instant product, unless there is a difference between the day and the day (hereinafter referred to as “instant 1-1”).

설령 날 끝에 절단날에 관한 규정이 적용될 수 있다고 하더라도 위 내충격성 기준에서 말하는 '금'이란 취성파괴(性波壞, 외부에서 힘을 받았을 때 물체가 소성 변형을 거의 보이지 아니하고 파괴되는 현상)의 일종으로서 형태 변형은 거의 없이 분리된 흔적만 발견되는 형태의 파괴이고, '균열'은 소성변형(塑性變形, 재료에 외력을 가하면 재료는 변형하는데, 어느 한도를 넘으면 가했던 하중을 제거해도 변형은 그대로 남아 원래의 형태로는 돌아가지 않게 된다. 이 성질을 소성이라고 한다. 소성에 의하여 생긴 변형을 소성변형이라고 한다) 후에 갈라진 연성파괴(延性破壞, 강재료에 인장력이 걸린 경우, 계속적으로 큰 변형이 진행하여 어떤 면을 따라 크게 미끄러진 것처럼 파괴하는 경우)를 의미하므로, '금'과는 의미가 전혀 다르다. 위 내충격성 기준은 금이 가거나 깨어지는 경우를 규정하고 있으므로 날 끝에 균열이 발생한 이 사건 제품은 위 기준에 해당하지 않는다. 따라서 이 사건 제품은 내충격성 기준에 위배되지 않음에도 이 사건 제품이 위 안전기준을 위반하였음을 전제로 하는 이 사건 처분은 위법하다(이하 '제1-2주장'이라 한다).

2) In order for the Defendant to take the instant disposition based on Article 11(1)1 of the Framework Act on Product Safety, it shall be based on the results of the safety inspection lawfully implemented, as prescribed by relevant statutes. Meanwhile, Article 9(3) of the Framework Act on Product Safety provides that detailed matters, such as the method and procedure for safety inspection, and the storage and inspection of the details and results of the investigation, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety provides that an institution or organization that may request the safety inspection shall be prohibited from requesting a test, inspection, etc. for the pertinent product under the proviso. However, the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, requested a research institute that received the safety certification for the instant product to conduct a safety inspection again and issued the instant disposition based on the result thereof. This is against the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety, and thus, the safety inspection is unlawful. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the result of the illegal safety inspection is also unlawful

3) According to Article 11(1)1 of the Framework Act on Product Safety, where the risk of the pertinent product is confirmed as a result of the safety investigation, the Defendant may order the collection, etc. However, as the result of the safety investigation, the Defendant determined that the instant product was at risk. However, in light of the technical characteristics of the date the product was discovered, the frupture of the date the product was discovered, and thus, the frupture is not likely to cause harm to consumers’ lives, bodies, and property because the frupture was destroyed subsequent to the frupture alteration. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful (hereinafter referred to as the “section 3”).

4) Even if the risk of the instant product is partially confirmed, there was no accident that occurred due to the date of the preliminary stage of the instant product manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff, and there was no complaint related to the safety on the date of the preliminary stage of the instant product. The date of the preliminary stage of the instant product produced by the Plaintiff is preventing the problem of golding or leaving away from the date of the use of the high-purpose gold steel steel steel steel pipe, which is an excellent tool used only by some large enterprises, etc., and there is little risk that the use of the instant product may cause harm to the life, body, or property of users. In full view of the circumstances such as the instant disposition prevents the Plaintiff from selling the instant product, and the Plaintiff suffers enormous damage if all the previous sales were collected, compared to the public interest to achieve the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, is unlawful (hereinafter referred to as “section 4”).

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff obtained product safety certification from the Institute as to the portable first-time day of February 12, 2013, with respect to the portable first-time day of January 16, 2013, with respect to a portable first-time day of February 12, 2013, with respect to each type, E, and 2 degrees.

2) The Plaintiff’s representative director F holds a patent of patent GH.

3) Results of safety investigations

A) The photographs of the instant product revealed as a result of the entire shape and safety test of the instant product are as shown in the images of the instant product. On the other hand, the photographs of the product, the suitability of which was determined as a result of the safety examination, are as shown in the images of the instant product as shown in attached

B) On September 4, 2013, the Defendant requested a re-examination to the Director of the Research Center ex officio to re-examine the risks of the instant product. Accordingly, on September 5, 2013, as a result of the re-examination conducted on September 5, 2013, the Defendant was found to have a gold phenomenon in three out of the nine samples of the instant product, and the fact that there was a fact that there was a fact that a day-off falls from the two samples.

4) Procedures for examining the risks of the instant product

A) On September 6, 2013, when the Plaintiff raises an objection to the results of the safety investigation, a meeting of related agencies was held at the meeting of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Korea Products Safety Association, and the researcher. In that place, the Plaintiff consented to the opinion that the date is included in the Work Day, and the researcher, who is the testing and inspection institution for the instant product, presented the test report at the end of the “day” as set out in the test report, and consented to the administrative measures after inquiring of the department in charge of the enactment, amendment, and interpretation of the Safety Standards of the Korean Standard Institute (living Product Safety Department) as to whether the price is gold or shouldered or broken on the cut day set out in the test report on April 6, 2013. The daily product safety division, which is the department in charge, is included in the Work Day, and at the end of the day, it is determined that the gold is not in conformity with the safety standards.”

B) Meanwhile, the 7th Product Safety Advisory Committee, which was held by the Defendant on September 10, 2013, determined that the Plaintiff’s civil petition was groundless, and that the Plaintiff’s civil petition was not reasonable, and all the members consented to the administrative disposition (e.g., an order to recall, etc. the product of this case presented by the Defendant. The main point of the 7th Product Safety Advisory Committee

○○ “The Framework Act on Product Safety focuses on safety, so if the date is likely to fall, it is dangerous for consumers to use.” “There is a risk of risk of risk to consumers because of the fact that additional shock even after the smoke destruction is likely to occur, and if 4 products, including the instant products, among 22 products, are inappropriate, and there is a risk of safety if the problem arises on two days from the internal shock test.” ○○ “If there is a risk of falling the smoke destruction, and there is a problem on two days from the internal shock test, it is deemed that the use of the product is dangerous. Even if the smoke destruction can be predicted and the risk is stated in the directions for use, it is difficult for consumers to determine whether to prohibit the use of the product subjectively.”

5) Interpretational opinion on the standards of internal shockness on April 6 of the instant Annex 4.6

A) Interpretational opinions presented by the Director to the Defendant on September 9, 2013 are as follows.

The prior meaning of '○○' means that the prior meaning of 'welter,' is sweltered or outer, and the prior meaning of 'welter,' can be interpreted as including rupture or rupture when considering that the ○○○ Plaintiff's cutting day can be interpreted as including rupture or rupture in light of the socially accepted meaning of 'the Standard Diction of the Korean Language Institute' (the Standard Diction of the Korean Language Institute of Korea), after the examination, and such a rupture may lead to the rupture reduction if the additional ruptures are followed by the additional ruptures of 9 samples, which are actually tested in the ○○ additional test, and on the first day when the rupture falls from the 2 samples, the rupture reduction caused by shock can lead to an additional accident of the user, so it is difficult to think that the rupture from the rupture engineering design might not be permitted.

B) The main contents of technical opinions presented at the request of the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013 by the Gyeongbuk Engineering Design Institute, an incorporated association, are as follows:

○ 금에 대한 사전적 정의는 “갈라지지 않고 터지기만 한 흔적”으로 되어 있고(국립국어원표준국어대사전) 금의 공학적 의미는 취성파괴(性破壞, brittle fracture)로 정의될 수있다. 즉, 형태의 변형은 거의 없이 분리된 흔적만 관찰되는 형태의 파피이다. 원고의절단날 현황은 충격시험 후 날부에 큰 소성변형이 일어나고 날부 폭의 일부가 갈라지며,연성파괴현상이 관찰된다.○ 연구원에서는 이를 절단날에 금이간 것으로 보고 부적합 의견을 제시하였다.○ 소성변형 후에 갈라진 연성파괴(延性破壞, ductile fracture) 현상은 금이 아니므로 이 사건 제품은 4. 6. 내충격성 기준에 위배된다고 볼 수 없다.

In conclusion, the 4, 6, and internal shock are judged to be prohibited from spreading the "prevention and prohibition against the short" of the cutting day due to the destruction of fladry and the "flading day".

C) The main contents of the written opinion drawn up at the Plaintiff’s request on November 25, 2013, as well as the mechanical design engineering and professors of the Ansan University, are as follows:

○ 내충격성은 쉽게 깨어지는 취성(性)을 가지고 있는 재료나 물질, 제품이 충격에 견디는 성질을 의미하는데, 시험 대상에 따라서 내충격성의 판단은 달라서 강재(鋼材)에 있어서는 충격흡수 에너지로 정량적 판정을 하고, 또한 도료막 등에 대해서는 도료면에대한 낙추시험을 실시하여 발생하는 균열 박리로 판정함○ 이 사건 부속서에서 규정하는 내충격성 시험 평가의 목적은 비교적 높은 경도를 가지는절단날이 고속충격시 취성파괴를 일으키거나 재료의 고변형률 속도변형시 발생이 예상되는 경화(硬化)나 취화(脫化)로 금이 가거나 깨어져 파편 형태로 떨어져 나가는지를 판단하기 위함임따라서 내충격성 기준에서 언급된 금은 취성파괴시 또는 재료의 충격시 충격부에서 발생하는 현상이나, 본 안전성 조사에 사용된 절단날에서 발생한 날 끝 균열은 충격시험시 절단날이 충격에너지를 흡수하면서 충격부에서 현저한 소성변형 후 날부의 굽힘변형에 의한 갈라짐 (branching)으로 인한 균열로 ‘금이나 깨어짐' 과는 구별되어야 함

D) On November 25, 2013, the main contents of the written opinion drawn up at the Plaintiff’s request on November 25, 2013 by the former and US University Motor Vehicle Engineering and Professor J are as follows.

The destruction is the most dangerous destruction in structures, machinery, and equipment, since the destruction of falchis occurs under the low level of permission as a matter of course in the ordinary robbery design, and there are many cases where falchising is rapidly advanced and the structure leads to fatal damage. On the other hand, the falchising destruction is the most dangerous destruction up to the destruction.

Since the gold of the Annex of this case is a destruction by an overfame, which is generally a large and stable destruction, it is a destruction that is not a problem from the viewpoint of structural design, because it is not a matter of course. The gold of the Annex of this case is a form that occurs from the external shock load with the defected rupture, and the heat that appeared in the result of the safety test of the product of this case appears to be a dynamic destruction. Since the trace that appeared in the result of the safety test of this case is a dynamic destruction, it is not clear as referred

E) On November 11, 2013, the Defendant notified that the meeting was held by the Plaintiff, the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Chemical Convergence, the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Machinery and Electrical Products, and the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Construction and Living Environment, in order to review the Plaintiff’s civil petition and the claims in the instant lawsuit. As to the foregoing, the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Machinery and Electrical Products presented opinions that the portion on the day was golded, and that the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Construction and Living Environment of the instant product was inappropriate for safety standards. The Korea Testing and Research Institute presented opinions that some of the results of reading the real and photographs taken by the date of the instant product were destroyed.

6) The Defendant prepared the processing standards for inappropriate industrial products, and uses them as administrative measures because they are inappropriate to the safety standards. According to them, the highest level of harm as the criteria for the classification of nonconformity with safety standards falls under the case where industrial products are likely to cause serious harm to the life and body of consumers, diseases, or death, or damage to property or the natural environment widely. According to the above standards, the defects existing as of the first day of the portable preliminary preliminary examination fall under the largest defect.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-2, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 14-1 through 5, Eul evidence 14-1, 14-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 5-5, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 11-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1-1, 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence 14-1, and Eul evidence 14-2, and Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the pleading as a whole.

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

A) According to Article 11(1)1 of the Framework Act on Product Safety, which serves as the basis of the instant disposition, where the risk of the pertinent product is verified as a result of conducting a safety inspection, the head of the institute may order the relevant business entity to recall, etc. The Defendant determined that the instant product was in danger of the instant product because the instant product failed to meet the standards for sufficiency in the instant Annex upon the request of the Institute for safety inspection. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant product does not contravene the standards for sufficiency in the instant Annex, which serves as the premise of determining the risk. The Plaintiff’s individual assertion should be examined as to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B) Determination as to Section 1-1

(1) In light of the individual provisions and systems of the instant Annex, the following circumstances are revealed.

① According to the scope of the application of Annex 1. of this case, the above Annex provides for the revolving day (metalblade blade) of metal materials attached to a portable power plant. In addition, 2.1 of the definition of the term 2.2.2 of this case provides that the day b.1 is the main part of the main function, and the day 2.2 refers to the number of the side of the main function, and the day b.2 is the number of side of the main function, and the day b.2 of which is made so that the day b.2 can be used after the day of the main function, shall be considered as one day. According to each of the above provisions, the day b.2 is the main part of the main function, which is the day b.2's day part of the main function, which is the day b.2's day b.

② Of the 4.1 outer shapes of Annex 4.1, 4.1.2 of the instant Annex 4.1’s safety requirements, 4.1.2 of the two-dimensional cut day shall be one set at the end of the day and the end of the day (at least 98∑), and the end of the day shall be the same shape as that of the won at the time when he gets off from the central axis. According to such provisions, the cut day can be understood to be composed of the two-dimensional cut day and the end of the day, and even according to the above provisions, the cut day is the concept including the day.

③ On the other hand, 4.4 water control is stipulated that the length of the cutting date is not more than 305m, the thickness is not less than 1.8m, and the diameter of the hole is not more than 25.4m +0.15m. According to the above, the cutting day refers to the shape of the product as seen earlier on the video of the instant product, and the cutting day and the pool are included in the end.

④ The type of Annex 3.C is specified for the kind of cutting day. One of them is one body of a single body and a single body of a single body, or even if the day is divided, it is a product fixed to the entire body. Meanwhile, 7.3.6 of the marking and the operating manual 7.3 of the above notification 7.3, one must indicate cautions to ensure that the connecting pinc used for the connection of the day group from time to time to time does not cover the connecting pincin. According to each of the above provisions, it is understood that the day is part of the cutting day, which is connected to the whole part of the towing machine.

(2) In full view of the above contents of the Annex in this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the day is included in the cut day, excluding the end of the day. Moreover, as seen earlier, the day is included in the cut day, and most of the cut day means the body part excluding the end of the cutting day. As such, it is difficult to interpret the provision on the day as a special provision, and ② the above internal shock standard is also in violation of the internal shock standard, and it is difficult to present a case where the cut day is left far away from the external shock, and it is difficult to present a case where only the end of the cutting day is left far away from the outer shock, and it is most difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the standards on the shock part of the shock on April 6, 200 of this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s Annex in this case’s internal shock standard is applicable.

C) Determination as to Section 1-2

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant Annex differs from the eromatic destruction by requiring eromatic destruction according to eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eroding. However, there is no evidence to deem that the instant Annex differs from the eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic

(2) Even if the Annex of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is conceptually divided between the gradic destruction and the gradic destruction, the Korean language prior defines ‘gold' as ‘scam' or ‘scams' without being 's' or ‘scams' as ‘scams', and ‘heat' as ‘scams' in North Korea. However, when analyzing the engineering concept presented by the Plaintiff based on the aforementioned prior definition, it can be understood as the concept that includes both the gradic destruction and the gradic destruction. In addition, it seems that the prior definition of gold and fradic fever are not strictly distinguished from gold and fradication as the recognition of the general language or of the general public.

D) Sub-committee

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the interpretation of the standards for shock on April 6 of this case’s Annex 4 is without merit. If so, as a result of the safety examination, the “heat at the end of the day” on the product of this case constitutes a case where gold or shouldered on the cutting day. Therefore, there is no error of law in determining that the product of this case does not meet the standards for shock.

2) Determination as to the second proposal

A) Article 9(1)1 of the Framework Act on Product Safety provides that where a product distributed in the market is subject to safety control under the Quality Control and Safety Control of Industrial Products, a safety inspection on the product may be conducted to verify whether such product is harmful, and Article 9(3) provides that detailed matters, such as methods and procedures for safety inspection, details of investigation, and perusal of the results thereof, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety provides that an institution or organization that may request safety inspection in the main sentence, and provides that an institution or organization that has granted safety certification may not request a test, inspection

B) Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Quality Control and Safety Management of Industrial Products provides for industrial products subject to safety certification, such as industrial products subject to safety certification (a) and those subject to safety certification. According to Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Industrial Products subject to safety certification, the term “industrial products subject to safety certification” refers to those determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, which are deemed to be capable of preventing hazards through safety certification, from among the industrial products recognized as highly likely to cause harm to the lives and bodies of consumers, property damage, or damage to the natural environment due to their structure, quality, method of use, etc., and the term “industrial products subject to safety certification” refers to those determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry

C) Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Quality Control and Safety Management of Industrial Products Act provides safety certification goods, and industrial products subject to voluntary safety certification under Article 2(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule. The said Enforcement Rule was amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 23 on August 7, 2013, converting the date of the portable preliminary period of the industrial products subject to safety certification into those subject to voluntary safety certification

D) Comprehensively considering the aforementioned regulatory structure and content, the instant product with the seal of a portable towing machine was converted into an industrial product subject to voluntary safety certification from August 7, 2013, and thus, it is not subject to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety.

C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s request for safety inspection was unlawful or not reliable to the Institute which has conducted safety certification at the time, because the instant product was subject to safety certification. However, since the instant product was not subject to safety certification at the time of the Defendant’s request for safety inspection, the Defendant’s request for safety inspection cannot be deemed to violate the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety. Furthermore, the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Product Safety is understood to prevent the Plaintiff from requesting safety inspection to an institution that has conducted safety certification by presenting the results of the previous inspection or conducting formal inspection, in a manner that it is unlikely for the Institute that the results of the examination would not be reliable. In light of the legislative intent of the above provision, it is difficult to deny the reliability of the results of the investigation by the Institute.

3) Determination as to the third proposal

A) We examine whether the risks of the instant product have been verified through safety investigations. The circumstances revealed in the above findings are as follows.

① Article 11(1)1 of the Framework Act on Product Safety, which serves as the basis of the instant disposition, provides that where the risk of the pertinent product is confirmed as a result of safety inspection, it may be ordered to recall the relevant product, etc. However, the term “risk of the said provision” is a so-called indefinite concept that is difficult to determine whether the pertinent product satisfies the requirements. Considering this, the government, academic circles, legal circles, and members of civic groups held product safety advisory committees participating therein to determine whether the product in this case is dangerous based on their special experience and expertise. In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the members of the advisory committee on product before the proposal presented opinions that even if the instant product falls under the dynamic destruction, there is a possibility that additional shock may occur risk to consumers. Moreover, the Defendant reviewed from various perspectives whether the instant product in this case, such as ex officio request for re-examination or gathering opinions from the Plaintiff and researchers, etc.

② As seen earlier, the instant product failed to meet the standards for shockness required by the Annex to the instant Annex. The date of the preliminary examination is likely to cause serious harm to the life and body of consumers, in that it is highly likely that a part of the cutting day is left away from the external shock, because the metal materials cut at a strong speed, and thus, it is highly likely that the date of the preliminary examination, which failed to meet the standards for shockness, would cause serious harm to the life and body of consumers.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that the product of this case is a chromatic shock only when the external shock test takes place (the tearing shock test). However, even if a chromatic shock process takes place, the possibility that part of the product of this case might be left far away (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the product of this case does not take place in addition to the chromatic shock test, but it is not sufficient to recognize it by itself, and rather, it is confirmed that the result of the Plaintiff’s examination shows that the other product of this case, which was judged appropriate as a result of the safety examination, is out of some tromatics as a result of the chromatic shock test, but its external appearance is maintained, and some of the products were not discovered. In light of the fact that the other products of this case were judged appropriate as a result of the safety examination, it is difficult to easily find such concern as above.

B) In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, as shown in the result of the safety examination, insofar as the product of this case does not meet the resistant shock standards and thus it is difficult to raise concerns about risks that may arise to consumers’ lives and bodies, it is reasonable to view that the product of this case is in danger.

4) Determination as to Section 4

A) Circumstances showing the above facts are as follows.

① As seen earlier, if part of the cutting day is far away, the life and body of consumers would be fatally harmed. In light of the fact that the real name or body part of the preliminary accident is cut off, etc., it is very important to arbitrity on the preliminary date.

② As seen earlier, the instant product is likely to cause harm to consumers’ lives and bodies due to its failure to meet the resistant shock standards.

③ Even if the instant product was made with external shock, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is concern that part of the date of the instant product’s continued shock is likely to keep far away as seen earlier. Moreover, in light of the fact that the consumer using a towing machine was damaged on the day of shock, even if it was damaged on the day of shock, there is always the possibility that a part of the date of the instant product may be left far away even in the case of a dynamic destruction, taking into account that there are many cases in which the consumer who used a towing machine continued to use it without immediate verification even if it was damaged on the day of shock. Moreover, in light of the fact that there is almost little alteration to other products passing the safety inspection, it cannot be said that the dynamic destruction

④ The Plaintiff asserts that a large number of time and expenses were put in to develop the instant product, thereby resulting in enormous damage to the instant disposition. However, the instant product is directly related to the safety of consumers’ lives and bodies, and the Plaintiff’s damage to the instant disposition is anticipated. However, it is difficult to allow the Plaintiff to sell the instant product as it is, unless the public interest, such as consumer safety, is guaranteed.

⑤ Even in the case of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is sufficiently likely to inflict damages upon the Plaintiff by developing a better product and evaluating the market. On the other hand, even if there is any suspicion due to the sale of the instant product, the Plaintiff is not able to inflict damages on the consumers.

B) In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the damage that the instant disposition is likely to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff or to achieve is excessive compared to the public interest that is likely to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from or abusing its discretion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.