beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff A purchased “F” (hereinafter “instant pharmaceutical product”) which is the Defendant’s pharmaceutical product at the E pharmacy located in Chuncheon City D, and used it with Plaintiff B.
After using the instant medicine, there were symptoms, such as pulmonal difficulty, etc. due to a severe pulmonal disorder, etc. caused by the Plaintiff’s body’s total body to be fright and thomy, and the Plaintiff’s fright and thomy, which were included in the instant medicine, as a result of the use of the instant medicine.
Plaintiff
B, both arms and legs were displayed, and both sides were hard to walk.
The Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs [Plaintiff A: 15,188,348 won (=the treatment cost of KRW 7,188,348 KRW 48 million) and the Plaintiff B: 62,158,820 won (=the treatment cost of KRW 2,158,820 KRW 60 million)] due to the side effects of the instant drug.
2. According to Gap evidence Nos. 21-1 and evidence No. 35, there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or according to the evidence No. 21-1 and evidence No. 35, it can be acknowledged that the medicine of this case manufactured by the defendant contains fishery nitroium and nitanium. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is enough to cause adverse effects on the human body.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the fishery chemical products added to the instant medicine and the symptoms alleged that the Plaintiffs have suffered physical injury, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to an illegal act, means the time when the existence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the causal link between the harmful act and the damage, has been practically and specifically recognized as to the elements of the illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7577, May 27, 2010).