beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the plaintiff's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are most different from the allegations in the court of first instance. The evidence submitted in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in this court was presented to this court, it is acknowledged that the facts of first instance and the judgment are legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance or the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this Court’s judgment is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is judged to be 13.
later, the following is added:
In addition, according to the evidence of Eul No. 16, the NHTSA and FMVS N. 228 safety standards regulations are not prescribed in the vehicle's steering hand and driver's sets.
2. Additional determination
A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the establishment of liability for damages and the lack of trial deliberation 1) According to Article 3-2 of the Plaintiff’s alleged product liability Act, in a case where a consumer suffers damage while the product is normally used, the damage occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and 3. The damage does not occur ordinarily without any negligence.
If the manufacturer does not prove the fact that the damage was caused by any other cause than the defect, the damage was caused by the defect in the manufacturer’s side.
It is presumed that the above facts were proved in this case, and the plaintiff should not prove that there is no room to regard the plaintiff's physical damage due to any other cause than defect of the product. Thus, the above facts are proved in this case.