1. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were ingested by the Defendant.

Plaintiff

Around 07:00 on November 17, 2016, the Defendant claimed medical expenses and damages in the name of consolation money to the Plaintiff, while taking in the laver manufactured by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant product”). Around 07:00, the Defendant suffered injury to the left-hand side of Haak (hereinafter “instant accident”).

However, there is no evidence that the instant accident was caused by the instant product manufactured by the Plaintiff, as well as that there is no possibility that foreign substances may be mixed because the instant product is carried out pre-processing washing and inspection.

Therefore, since the above injury suffered by the defendant was not caused by the consumption of the product of this case, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate for the accident of this case.

Judgment

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant accident occurred due to mixing of foreign substances with the instant product manufactured by the Plaintiff.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant has the details of treatment prior to the accident of this case, such as "refection" and "confection infection," and the fact that he/she received dental treatment by "confection infection," even around November 18, 2016 following the accident of this case. In light of these facts, it is difficult to deem that the defendant suffered damage from foreign substances mixed with the product of this case due to the disease of this case.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is liable for damages against the Defendant regarding the instant accident, and the Plaintiff is also legally entitled to seek confirmation of the absence of such liability.

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.