[1] Criteria for determining whether a design defect in product liability exists, and matters to be considered in particular in determining the design defect of a medicine

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the cold medication "Contac 600", which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanprophanololamine (a synthetic assistant principal), has a design defect to the extent that it is liable for tort against the consumer

[3] The elements of product liability due to a defect in the indication, and the criteria for determining whether the defect was defective

[4] The case holding that there is no defect in indication in the cold medication "Contac 600," which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanprophanolamine (a synthetic assistant principal) which is a synthetic sympathomtic amine,

[5] The case holding that the phrase "Contac 600," which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanprophanolamine (a synthetic assistant principal) cannot be viewed as guaranteeing that the manufacturer does not harm the consumer when using the above reduction medication normally, and it cannot be viewed as an expression of intent to bear strict liability when an accident occurs

[6] Whether it is permissible to simply invoke the contents of the preparatory brief written by the court below without a specific statement on the grounds of violation of the law of the court below in the appellate brief (negative)

[7] In a case where a person who took the cold medication "Contac 600," which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanprophanololamine (a synthetic assistant principal), died, the case denying the establishment of State liability for compensation on the ground that it is difficult for public officials of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, etc. to take measures to eliminate the risks associated with the taking of the above medication in light of the overall circumstances at the time, on the ground that it is difficult to view that there is a negligence

[1] 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, etc. In light of the product’s structure, quality, performance, etc., and is liable for tort in cases where damage to the user was caused by a defect without safety. Of these defects, the issue of whether a product is so-called design defect refers to a case where damage or risk could have been reduced or avoided if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design but the product could not be safe due to failure to adopt a reasonable alternative design should be determined in light of social norms, comprehensively considering the characteristics and use of the product, the user expectation of the product, anticipated risks, users’ awareness of risks, possibility of avoiding risks by the user, possibility of avoiding risks by the alternative design and economic cost, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the adopted design and alternative design. Such legal principle shall apply to a drug. However, the pharmaceutical product is ordinarily a synthetic chemical, resulting in chemical reaction within the human body and at the same time, and at the same time, considering the factors harmful to the body of the manufacturer even if it was manufactured through normal manufacturing process.

[2] In a case where a person taking the cold medication “Contac 600”, which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanolprophanololamine (a synthetic assistant principal), died of stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stropha, the case holding that it is difficult to view that the above cold stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke sro

[3] When a manufacturer, etc. fails to make reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that could have been avoided or reduced damage or danger caused by the product, then 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 ordinary social norms, by 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 risks, and possibility of avoiding risks by the user.

[4] In a case where a person who takes the cold medication "Contac 600", which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanolprophanololamine (a synthetic assistant principal), died of stroke, the case holding that the above medicine has no defect in indication in light of the following: (a) the manual of use indicates that strokes are side effects; and (b) states the direction that strokes are not administered to patients with such disease, etc.; and (c) the manual of use contains any defect in indication

[5] The case holding that the phrase "this product may be compensated in accordance with the Public Notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy," which is an over-the-counter medication 600 "Contac 600, which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylpropholprophanolamine (a synthetic assistant principal), has the meaning of guiding the consumer of the above cold medication and the manufacturer to claim compensation in accordance with the procedures and standards under the former Consumer Protection Act (wholly amended by the Framework Act on Consumers, Act No. 7988 of September 7, 2006), and its subordinate statutes, and it cannot be deemed that the manufacturer guarantees the consumer not to harm any normal use of the above cold medication and bears strict liability when the accident occurs.

[6] The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below violated the law, and the contents of the briefs in the court below cannot be invoked simply.

[7] In a case where a person taking the cold medication "Contac 600", which is an over-the-counter medication containing biphenylprophanolololamine (a synthetic assistant principal) died of stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke, the case holding that even if the provisions of the former Consumer Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7988 of Sep. 7, 2006) and the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 2007) do not exclusively aim at protecting the safety and interests of individuals as well as for protecting the safety and interests of the general public, it is difficult to view that a public official at the time of manufacture and supply of the above medicine, in light of the research correlation between biphenylprophol stroke and stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroph

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2 (b) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 2 (b) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 2 subparag. 2 (c) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 2 subparag. 2 (c) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [5] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 12 (2) of the former Consumer Protection Act (amended by Act No. 798 of Sep. 7, 2006) (see current Article 16 (2) of the Framework Act on Consumers), Article 70 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Consumer Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1958 of Mar. 27, 2007), Article 10 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Consumers

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1733 decided Sep. 5, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2012), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16771 decided Mar. 12, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 611) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1159 decided Nov. 12, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 109) Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 decided Apr. 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 99Sang, 99Sang), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da293566, 29363 (Gong2901Sang, 2948) decided Mar. 23, 2001

Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Inn Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

LLC et al. (Law Firm Ha & Yang et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na9448 decided June 19, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant Yang LLC

A. As to the assertion of tort liability

(1) 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, and performance of the product. A manufacturer is liable for tort in cases where damage to the user was caused by a defect without safety. Of these defects, whether a product is so-called design defect refers to a case where damage or risk could have been reduced or avoided if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design, and thus the product could not be safe because the manufacturer failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design, should be determined in light of social norms, by comprehensively taking into account such factors as the characteristics and use of the product, users' expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, users' awareness of risks, possibility of avoiding risks by the user, possibility of avoiding risks by the alternative design and economic cost, and relative advantages and disadvantages of the adopted design and alternative design (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da17333, Sep. 5, 2003; 203Da1671, Mar. 12, 2004).

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, since the research report of the PPA at the universities of the United States on April 200, which was made public of the PPA (hereinafter referred to as the "PPA research") was mainly conducted on the biphenyl prone lamination as a dynasium; it was known that the manufacturer of the PPA still did not use the PPA's dynasium drug's dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium d.

In the same purport, the court below's decision to reject the plaintiffs' claim for tort damages against the above defendant on the ground of negligence is just in its conclusion, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence affecting the judgment and misapprehension of the legal principles as to tort liability under product liability, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(2) Meanwhile, even in cases where a manufacturing or design defect is not recognized, if a manufacturer, etc. fails to take reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that could have been avoided or reduced damage or risks caused by the product, then 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 by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the characteristics of the product, ordinary usage mode, user expectation of the product, anticipated risks of the product, user awareness of the risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by the user (see the above Supreme Court decisions).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts duly admitted by the court below, namely, the manual of contact 600 that the deceased non-party at the time of the accident of this case marks the blood stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke scoke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke.

In the same purport, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant LLC was negligent in failing to give reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, etc. to general consumers in terms of social norms, and the rejection of the plaintiffs' claims against the above Defendant on the ground of such negligence is justifiable in its judgment, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to product liability as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(3) In addition, in light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to view that the judgment of the court below contains the purport of rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant limited liability was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures to cope with danger by exercising the duty of care or continuous care after manufacturing and supplying medicines, and thus, it also includes the plaintiffs' assertion that this part of the judgment of the court below erred in the omission of judgment is not acceptable.

B. As to the assertion of guarantee liability

According to the relevant evidence, "this product may be compensated in accordance with the Public Notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy." The above part of this phrase includes "The detailed matters, such as directions for use, such as attached documents - side effects - the consumer counsel office's telephone number is stated below the above phrase, and "Public Notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" stated in the above package refers to "consumer damage compensation regulations" immediately. The consumer damage compensation regulations are enacted in accordance with Article 12 (2) of the former Consumer Protection Act, which provides that "the State may establish consumer damage compensation standards by item for the smooth resolution of disputes between consumers and enterprisers according to the general consumer damage compensation standards prescribed by Presidential Decree." The consumer damage compensation regulations which have been in force at the time of the accident in accordance with Article 12 (2) of the former Consumer Protection Act, which provides that "the consumer damage compensation standards by item" and "the consumer damage compensation standards by item" can be prescribed in Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Consumer Protection Act for the smooth resolution of disputes between consumers and enterprisers pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Consumer Protection Act.

In full view of the language and text of Contac 600 packaging and the context before and after Contac 600 packaging and the purport and contents of the consumer damage compensation provision, the above phrase has the meaning of guiding consumers to claim damages in accordance with the procedures and compensation standards prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the consumer damage compensation provision, and barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs expressed their intent to guarantee that if Contac 600 packaging is normally used Contac 600 packaging and to bear strict liability at the time of the occurrence of the accident.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the contract of guarantee for the defendant limited liability under the above package order, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the consumer damage compensation provision as otherwise alleged in the ground

C. As to the assertion of liability based on Product Liability Act and the former Consumer Protection Act

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the contents of the briefs in the original judgment cannot be invoked simply (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu1159 delivered on November 12, 1993; 2000Da29356, 29363 delivered on March 23, 2001).

The grounds of appeal in this case include only the statement that “to supplement this part of the grounds alleged in the original trial but only to supplement it through the submission of the supplemental appellate brief.” It does not state any part of the judgment below as to which part of the grounds of appeal is against the law, and it does not state any other matters that may be the grounds of appeal. Thus, the appellate brief on this part is not submitted. The appellate brief does not contain any grounds of appeal as to this part of the appeal.

2. As to Defendant Republic of Korea

Even if the provisions of the former Consumer Protection Act and the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act cited by the Plaintiffs merely aim at promoting the general public or the overall interests of individuals as well as to protect the safety and interests of the members of society as stated in the judgment below, there are situations where it is difficult to see that, even if the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Republic of Korea were to have lawfully established in order to protect the safety and interests of individuals, i.e., pPA maximum intake quantity of less than 100§¯, it is difficult to see that 600% of the instant Contac 600 were to be taken twice a day, and that there was no risk of exposure to the Defendant 1’s pharmaceutical products under the jurisdiction of the Korea Food and Drug Administration because of the fact that there was no significant risk of exposure to the Defendant 1’s maximum intake quantity of the PPA in light of the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and that there was no risk of exposure to the 60-day PPA’s PA’s request for removal of the risks of exposure to the Defendant 1’s body.

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)