The case holding that the company Gap was jointly and severally liable for damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant and Eul's design and sale of the humidifier disinfectant under the former Act on the Protection and Prevention of Disasters under the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine whether the damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant occurred, although the special act for remedy for damage caused by humidifier disinfectant was enacted and the medical probability between the exposure to the humidifier disinfectant and the occurrence of the health damage is recognized, and Eul was paid a certain amount of monthly amount of compensation for the damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant, on the ground that the company Gap was jointly and severally liable for damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant's design and sale of the humidifier disinfectant, since the humidifier disinfectant used the humidifier disinfectant and Byung's humidifier disinfectant, and it was diagnosed that there was abnormal exposure to the pulmonary damage caused by the pulmonary damage, such as the pulmonary damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant, and the company Gap was jointly and severally liable for damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant's damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant's design and sale of the humidifier disinfectant.

A and C Co., Ltd. used humidifier disinfectants that were manufactured and sold by C and C, and were diagnosed by the hospital that there was abnormal exposure to the pulmonary pulmonary disease and pulmonary image of the waste. As a result of the investigation conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine whether the disease caused by the first humidifier disinfectant was caused, “A” was determined as “B”. However, the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by humidifier disinfectant was enacted (hereinafter “CB”) and “A medical probability is recognized between the exposure to humidifier disinfectant and the occurrence of health damage,” and was paid a certain amount of monthly wage as the subject of relief corresponding to remedial benefit under the humidifier disinfectant Act was recognized as the subject of relief corresponding to the relief benefit under the humidifier disinfectant Act. However, A’s humidifier disinfectant was not a risk material that may cause fatal damage to the pulmonary disease, such as the pulmonary disease, and was sold by C and C on the ground that C were responsible for the design and damage of C and C humidifier disinfectant products in the humidifier disinfectant.

The case holding that Gap company is not responding to the existing pharmacologic in the case of the damage caused by humidifier disinfectant users, on the other hand, since it was diagnosed with the damage caused by humidifier disinfectant using normal usage, and the main ingredients of humidifier disinfectant were toxicly toxic, Gap's pHG patients, and there is a possibility that Eul's symptoms may be related to scarcity's symptoms at hospitals, etc. treating Gap up to the recent period, etc., and on the other hand, its symptoms were mitigated by medication such as scard, but it did not respond to the existing pact; since it was not found in the container of the humidifier disinfectant using humidifier disinfectant, which was diagnosed to the effect that the humidifier disinfectant was damaged, and it was found that it was not consistent with the organizational disease, clinical opinion, and communicable disease of the humidifier disinfectant, which was the main ingredients of the humidifier disinfectant, and that it was found that there was no harm caused to the users of the humidifier disinfectant or any other pulmonary disease, and that most of it was found to have been exposed to the harm caused by pulmonary disease in light of safety and other factors.

Article 2 Subparag. 2, Article 3, and Article 5 of the Product Liability Act; Articles 393, 750, 760, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by humidifier disinfectant

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongsung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Gakkkkwwk et al. (Attorneys Kim Sung-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da3810 decided December 24, 2015

August 14, 2019

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 5 million won and 5% interest per annum from February 26, 2015 to September 18, 2019, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked jointly and severally. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from February 26, 2015 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff extended the claims of this Court).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant limited liability company (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is a company that develops, manufactures, and sells humidifier disinfectant, and the Defendant 1, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is a company that manufactures and sells chemical products by requesting the manufacture of humidifier disinfectant from Defendant 1, the company that manufactures and sells the humidifier disinfectant.

B. From November 2007 to April 201, the Plaintiff used the humidifier disinfectant under the name of “○○○○○○○○ △△△△△△△” (hereinafter “instant humidifier disinfectant”) that was manufactured and sold by the Defendants from November 2007 to April 201, and symptoms, such as intrusion, have occurred during the period of use. △△ Hospital received treatment from May 10, 2010 to the opinion of pulmonary pulmonary disease with detailed uncertainty, and received treatment from the hospital. From September 2010 to September 9, 201, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital and received treatment several times as a result of pulmonary disease from the hospital. On May 9, 2013, the Director General of the Culture and Arts Office received the detailed diagnosis of the liver△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△’s diagnostic defect with a fiber certificate, and the diagnosis of pulmonary disease, etc. during the period.

C. On April 201, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter “the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) conducted an epidemiological investigation upon receipt of a report and a request for investigation on the increase of patients with severe pulmonary diseases caused by humidifier disinfectant, conducted an epidemiological investigation, and issued the results of an interim investigation on August 31, 201, which was 47.3 times higher than the non-user group than the non-user group, as a result of an epidemiological investigation conducted by the patients-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-gun on August 31, 201. In addition, other than the above epidemiological investigation, it was confirmed that the damage of pulmonary cells, consistent with the results of an epidemiological investigation, could be confirmed in some

Based on the results of such interim investigation, the Korea Centers clarified that the humidifier disinfectant was presumed to be a risk factor of pulmonary damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant, and recommended the people to refrain from using the humidifier disinfectant and to refrain from withdrawing the humidifier disinfectant to the manufacturer until the final result reaches the final result.

Furthermore, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted the cell toxicity test and the diversative toxicity test to clarify the causal link between the use of humidifier disinfectant and the damage caused by the pulmonary damage, and as a result, the humidifier disinfectant of this case confirmed that the humidifier disinfectant of this case caused toxic reactions to normal pulmonary cells, and that it caused active acids that may cause the pulmonary fiberization, and recommended the suspension of use on November 201 and ordered the removal.

D. After the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an investigation to determine whether the reported cases suspected of being exposed to humidifier disinfectant and causing health damage (hereinafter “instant investigation”). Specifically, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined the need to investigate the damage caused by humidifier disinfectant on December 2012, and conducted a medical examination and environmental investigation from July 2013 to September 201 of the same year, and conducted a determination procedure from September 2013 to November 201 of the same year. As a result of the determination, the determination was presented as “possibilityly verified (Class 1),” “high potential (Class 2),” “high potential (Class 3),” “no possibility (Class 4),” “no possibility (Class 4),” and “no possibility of determination”.

E. As a result of the instant investigation, on March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 3 on the ground that “if the Plaintiff determined based on the assessment of the exposure to the residential environment and the clinical data reading submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s disease was determined as having low possibility of pulmonary disease centered on the terminal part of the terminal organ due to humidifier disinfectant.” The above Grade 3 is a case where the exposure to humidifier disinfectant was confirmed, it cannot be completely ruled out of the impact of humidifier disinfectant since part of the process of the occurrence and progress of the humidifier disinfectant can be suspected through pathology tests, film medicine tests, clinical dogs, etc. at a certain point. However, given that the overall progress does not coincide with the occurrence and progress of the pulmonary disease accompanied by micro-oriented fiber, it means that the possibility of pulmonary disease centered on the terminal part of the terminal organ caused by humidifier disinfectant is lower in consideration of other causes.

The plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on July 2014, but was also judged as class 3 in the reexamination.

F. Around March 11, 2014, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established a government subsidy and health management plan, including medical expenses and funeral expenses, only for those determined as Class 1 and Class 2 following the instant investigation. On the other hand, for those determined as Class 3 including the Plaintiff, government subsidy was excluded from those eligible for government subsidy on the ground that the government subsidy is premised on the exercise of the right to reimbursement. Such determination of damage and the grant of remedial benefits were made based on the Environmental Health Act, and were established on February 8, 2017, and were included in the Special Act on Remedy against Damage to humidifier disinfectant, which was enforced on August 9, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Act”).

G. However, the Ministry of Environment, however, received benefits of KRW 973,707 from May 2018 to 707 from the Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute affiliated with the Ministry of Environment as of October 27, 2017, upon receiving notification from the Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute under the Ministry of Environment that “the Plaintiff was recognized as being eligible for relief benefits equivalent to remedial benefits in the remedy account management committee pursuant to Article 32 subparag. 2 of the Special Act,” and received benefits of KRW 973,707 from May 2018.

H. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment expanded the scope of victims of humidifier disinfectant by adding persons recognized as needing support equivalent to remedial benefits after deliberation by the remedy account management committee, other than those recognized as suffering damage caused by humidifier disinfectants. The Ministry of Environment deleted the content premised on the subrogation of the right to claim compensation for damage against humidifier disinfectant suppliers when paying remedial benefits, and revised the special law to revise the subrogation clause of the right to claim compensation for damage from the compulsory provision to the compulsory provision, and enforced February 15, 2019.

(i) On May 27, 2019, the Ministry of Environment notified the Plaintiff as the result of an environmental labor exposure survey conducted by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constituted a humidifier disinfectant exposure verification.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's statements, 1 through 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26, 38, 69 through 83, 93, and 94, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

Although the humidifier disinfectant of this case contains polyethylisidine (hereinafter “PHMG”), which is a dangerous substance that may cause fatal damage to the respiratory system, such as waste, the Defendants indicated that the product was safe in the manufacturing and sale of the humidifier disinfectant of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants, as the manufacturer of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damage caused by defects in design and indication of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, in accordance with the Product Liability Act.

B. The Defendants

As a result of the investigation of this case, the Plaintiff did not have a causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s use of the humidifier disinfectant and the present medical certificate.

3. Establishment of product liability

(a) Whether there exists any design defect;

1) Relevant legal principles

Generally, a manufacturer or seller of a product must manufacture a product with safety within the expected range in light of the current technical level and economic feasibility in terms of the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the product. The manufacturer or seller is liable for tort if damage was incurred to the user due to such defect. Of these defects, the manufacturer or seller mainly failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design but could have reduced damage or risk if he or she had employed a product, thereby preventing safety. Whether a so-called design defect occurred should be determined in light of social norms, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the product’s characteristics and usage; (b) users’ expectation and contents; (c) foreseeable risks; (d) users’ awareness of the product; (e) the possibility of avoiding risks by users; (e) economic cost of the alternative design; and (g) relative advantages of the adopted design and alternative design (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17338, Sept. 5, 2003).

2) Determination

The term "design defect" in the Product Liability Act means a product's failure to adopt a reasonable alternative design even if damage or risk would have been reduced or avoided if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design (see Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Product Liability Act). In light of the above, the issue of whether there was a design defect in the humidifier disinfectant of this case is examined as to whether there was a design defect in the humidifier disinfectant of this case.

In light of the above facts and the aforementioned evidence, the Defendants appears to have a design defect using PHMG in the humidifier disinfectant in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be seen by adding up the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 13, 20, 88 through 90, and 96, and the overall purport of this court’s facts and arguments.

① The instant humidifier disinfectant is used as a method of inserting about about 10ml when taking the damp water together, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as to the pulmonary damage by using the said humidifier disinfectant under the normal usage as seen above.

② The main ingredients of the humidifier disinfectant of this case are PHG, and if water shielded through moistures come into the air, PHMG will be formed by responding to the entrance. PHMG’s entrance is very small in size and is influence or debrising, which does not go from the above-mentioned Dos, such as nose, and due to its toxic nature, it will lead to a certain stimulities in the lung. In the rapid progress of symptoms caused by stimulation, the removal of the waste is hard to view that there is a high level of acute pulmonary pulmonary body, and that there is no possibility that the removal of the Plaintiff’s death will take place in a pulmonary organ with a view to avoiding the death of the Plaintiff due to a sudden increase in low resistance. Meanwhile, it is difficult to say that the removal of the Plaintiff’s pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary body, and that the removal of the Plaintiff’s pulmonary pulmonary body could not take part in the treatment of the Plaintiff’s pulmonary body.

③ In general, infectious diseases are mitigated by medication, such as stheme. As for the damage caused to the humidifier disinfectant users, the symptoms are not reactioned to the existing pharmacologic. In the Plaintiff’s case, the saccine, saccine, and viral pathogens related to the waste fiber was not discovered, and organizational pathology, and clinical opinions do not coincide with infectious disease (as for the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 96, and as for the record of the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff initially diagnosed the saccinic pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Elimination Hospital on June 2010, but the possibility of being related to the humidifier disinfectant at the time was not entirely at issue, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff was infected with the

④ On August 201, the Korea Centers published the results of an epidemiological investigation and research conducted around 201, that the cause of the damage to collective severe damage was presumed to be a humidifier disinfectant, and subsequently, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an interim and final test that confirmed the relationship between the humidifier disinfectant and the damage to the waste of this case on November 201 and February 2012.

⑤ The Plaintiff was recognized as a person eligible for relief equivalent to remedial benefits at the remedy account management committee. The remedy account management committee received reports on the exposure to humidifier disinfectant and epidemiological and toxic studies, and selected four diseases, such as adult liverable diseases related to humidifier disinfectant health damage, as the target of the Special Remedy Account. If the existing disease recognized as a health damage was a non-pactic bruent disease accompanied by the lusent fiberization, the newly recognized liverable disease is a non-pact-oriented and non-chronic disease mainly affected the inter-pactic quality. On the other hand, the medical probability between the exposure to humidifier disinfectant and the applicant’s health damage should be recognized, and medical relation should be confirmed between the exposure to humidifier disinfectant and the applicant’s health damage, and the degree of health damage should be increased or continuous, and the Plaintiff’s health damage should be satisfied.

④ Former executives, employees of the research institute, etc. of the Defendants were convicted of the crime of occupational injury, etc. due to the use of the humidifier disinfectant in this case (Seoul High Court Decision 2017No242 and Supreme Court Decision 2017Do12537).

7) In light of the above facts and circumstances, it may be inferred that there was a defect in response to the humidifier disinfectant of this case, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the humidifier disinfectant of this case was damaged to the body even if it was used as a normal usage. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not prove that the Plaintiff’s damage was caused by another cause, not a defect in the humidifier disinfectant of this case. Thus, it is presumed that there was a defect in the humidifier disinfectant of this case and that the damage was caused to the Plaintiff due to such defect.

B. Whether there exists any defect in indication

1) Relevant legal principles

If a manufacturer, etc. fails to provide reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that could have reduced or avoided damage or risk caused by the product, then the manufacturer, etc. may be held liable for the tort against the defect in the indication. The determination as to whether such defect exists shall be made in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the characteristics of the product, ordinary usage, users' expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, users' awareness of the risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by users (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17333, Sept. 5, 2003, etc.).

2) Determination

"Defect in indication" under the Product Liability Act means a case where a manufacturer could have reduced or avoided damage or risk caused by the product if he/she had made a reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication (Article 2 subparagraph 2 (c) of the Product Liability Act) and fails to do so (Article 2 subparagraph 2 (c) of the Product Liability Act). We examine whether the phrases stated in the humidifier disinfectant container of this case have an indication defect.

According to Gap evidence No. 3 and video, the containers of the humidifier disinfectant of this case include "I can use it easily by using a safe ingredients in the human body", and "I can easily reproduce me by using an anti-resistant and purification function even if we use it. I can easily spread me at a water time and easily. In the case of the proliferation of meculous steam directly, it is possible to stimulate the respiratory symptoms by stimulating mebbbbrucation, so it is necessary to clean once every two to three days even if I go through water every day in order to control meculse propagation."

Considering the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, the humidifier disinfectant in this case seems to have a defect in indication, based on the following circumstances.

① The instant humidifier disinfectant, when replacing a damp water, is used by inserting it in the damp water. The safety of the humidifier disinfectant is most important because it is an environment in which the breath and the human body are inhaled because it is extremely vulnerable to health, such as young children, pregnant women, the elderly, etc., who are weak or whose water-saving capacity is deteriorated, are used in the sealed space.

② The Defendants indicated the phrase that PHMG was safe in the container of the instant humidifier disinfectant, including that it was a substance that was not determined as safe as to whether the pertinent humidifier disinfectant was inhaled, thereby compelling users, including the Plaintiff, including users to expect that the said humidifier disinfectant was safe. However, according to the results of the investigation by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, PHMG, the main ingredients of the said humidifier disinfectant, was closely related to the pulmonary damage.

③ The users of the instant humidifier disinfectant, including the Plaintiff, are bound to depend solely on the information presented by the Defendants because it is difficult for them to objectively understand the safety, hazard, etc. of the said product. Therefore, there was no choice but to believe the indication indicated in the instant humidifier disinfectant container.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the humidifier disinfectant of this case, which was manufactured and sold by the Defendants, has a design and indication defect, and thereby damaged the body of the Plaintiff, so the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage caused by the defect of the humidifier disinfectant of this case pursuant to Articles 3 and 5 of the Product Liability Act.

4. Scope of damages.

A. Without distinguishing the claim amount from the initial subject matter of a lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought 30 million won in consideration of the fact that 5,229,634 won was additionally paid as 4.46,300 won for the treatment expenses and 1.8 million won for the nursing expenses, and that in the future medical expenses are expected to be 13,389,000 won for the Plaintiff’s spouse, 5 million won for consolation money, 2 million won for the Plaintiff’s spouse, 1.5 million won for the Plaintiff’s two children and the mother’s two children, and 1.5 million won for transportation expenses, 1,081,366 won for the Plaintiff’s physical appraisal procedures, and the Plaintiff’s agent submitted reference documents to seek consolation money after the closing of argument at the court of the first instance, the scope of damages for the Defendants are limited to consolation money.

B. Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Defendants manufactured the humidifier disinfectant of this case, which stated the phrase that the humidifier disinfectant of this case was in danger of human safety even though there was no objective proof data that no damage was caused to the Plaintiff, thereby causing physical and mental harm to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants merely assert that there was no causal relationship between the humidifier disinfectant of this case and the Plaintiff’s injury, and the Defendants merely claim that there was no causal relationship between the humidifier disinfectant of this case and the Plaintiff’s injury, and do not have any compensation or fluence against the Plaintiff. In the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff cannot claim consolation money for family members who are not the Plaintiff himself, and the Plaintiff cannot claim consolation money for consolation money for the Plaintiff. After being judged as Grade 3 in the investigation of this case, the Plaintiff was recognized as being eligible for relief money and was paid a certain amount of monthly amount, the Defendants recognized the amount of consolation money as five million won for the Plaintiff.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 26, 2015 to September 18, 2019, which is the date the instant judgment was rendered, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings is reduced from 20% per annum to 15% per annum, and the provisions governing the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings were promulgated as of September 25, 2015, and the pleadings of the first instance court at the time were not concluded, and the damages for delay exceeding the limit of 15% per annum from the next day after the date of full payment is dismissed.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, it is accepted as part of the plaintiff's appeal and revoked it, order the payment of the above money recognized by this court against the defendants, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Won-won (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff did not specifically claim any design defect, such as the circumstance that the Defendants would have reduced or avoided damage or risk if they had employed a reasonable alternative design, but seems to have used PHMG, a dangerous substance harmful to the human body, for the instant humidifier disinfectant itself as a design defect.

2) On August 31, 201, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced an interim results of an epidemiological investigation on August 31, 201, and recommended the Defendant to refrain from using and departing from humidifier disinfectants, and the companies manufacturing and selling humidifier disinfectant including the Defendant Auction were at risk of being held accountable for civil and criminal liability according to the result of the final investigation conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In such a situation, in order to secure favorable testing results for the humidifier disinfectant manufacturers, Defendant Auction University made an illegal solicitation to the Nonparty, who is the professor of the Food Nutrition Department at Man University, “the Defendant Auction University, to conduct experiments and research in a direction favorable to Defendant Auction, to defend the legal resistance of the families suffering from damage caused by the death of the patients due to the cause,” and paid money to the Defendant. The above judgment became final and conclusive (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da616, Seoul High Court Decision 2016No32517, May 31, 2015).