1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is a person running "E" in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Namcheon-si, Namcheon-si, and the plaintiff B is a child of the plaintiff A, who operates "G farm" in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu.

B. On September 30, 2019, the Defendant purchased 200 Posium (hereinafter “the instant goods”) from H around September 30, 201, and sold 30 Posium to Plaintiff A, a member of the Defendant’s association, on October 4, 2019.

(c)

Plaintiff

From October 5, 2019, A used the feed of milch cattle raised by the plaintiffs in the above stock farm mixed with the goods of this case, and some cattle showed symptoms, such as gurology.

(d)

On October 8, 2019, the Defendant recovered seven of the instant goods remaining after being used by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the claim and the judgment thereof

A. The Defendant, which caused the claim, supplied the instant goods to the Plaintiffs with a pipe of corruption and mycoi. As a result, the Plaintiffs suffered losses, such as the Plaintiffs’ additional expenses due to milch cattle, embryo death, and fry failure, loss of profits due to the decrease of volume of flow, and pharmaceutical expenses.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the product liability and the damages for the non-performance of the non-performance of the non-performance of the non-performance of the non-performance of the non-performance of the obligation, 25,175,552 won, and the delayed damages.

B. The phrase “manufacturer” who is liable for damages to defects of a product under the Product Liability Act for the primary cause of the claim is ① a person who manufactures, processes, or imports the manufactured water as his/her business, and ② a person who indicates himself/herself as a person who uses a name, trade name, trademark, or other recognizable symbol on a product as one of his/her business operators or who uses a mark that could mislead him/her as such.

Accordingly, the Defendant manufactured, processed, or imported the instant goods, or made such indications or false indications;

There is no evidence to see, and this case.