1. With respect to the accident described in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) bears the burden on the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures electric sets and engages in wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant purchased and used the electric sets manufactured by the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The Defendant, on December 12, 2013, distributed and managed agricultural cooperatives in Yangyang-dong, Seoul, but the electricity set produced by the Plaintiff at the Guro-dong (hereinafter “instant electricity set”).

(2) Around June 21, 2014, the Defendant purchased the instant electrical box on the teithere lease located in the small bank of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1201, and then put the instant electrical box on the teithere, which is located in the small bank of No. 1201, Gangnam-gu.

On June 3, 2014, around 30:30:00 on June 37, 2014, the day following the day of the house-to-house work. At around 9:00, the fire was immediately extinguishmented, i.e., the fire was discovered from the above Tech to the fire, and the fire was spreading to the bathing room.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 3, and Eul 3 and 6 respectively, and the purport of the body before oral pleadings.

2. The judgment on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim and counterclaim shall be deemed the same as the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff stated in the manual of the electric set of this case that “it is dangerous to fire, so the Defendant used the said electric set along with the sular phone site, such as Lex,” in violation of this provision, and the fire of this case occurred. As such, the fire of this case was not caused by the defect of the electric set of this case manufactured by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff did not bear any liability for damages to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the fire of this case was caused by the defect of the heat line and temperature control apparatus of the electric set of this case.

It is consistent with the Defendant’s use of the instant electric sales contract together with the tex tex leasing and ber.