(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.6.23. 선고 2019나70447 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant pays to the plaintiff 252,159,112 won with 5% per annum from August 30, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 15% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part from the fourth to the seventh of the judgment of the court of first instance to the seventh of the seventh of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

“3. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of defect of a product

In order to presume that the product liability was a defect in the product and that the damage was caused by the defect, the victim's damage was caused by the cause of the actual control over the manufacturer, as well as the fact that the damage was caused by the manufacturer's damage. ② The victim's damage was caused by the normal use of the product, ③ the fact that the damage was not ordinarily caused without the defect of the product (Article 3-2 of the Product Liability Act).

Although the Defendant’s moisture, which the Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the chemical substance of this case, cannot be used for commercial or industrial purposes, the Plaintiff used it for industrial purposes. Even if the fire of this case was caused by the Defendant’s substantial control area, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be presumed that the defect of the product was caused by the Defendant’s substantial control area, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the defect of the product. The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the defect of the

B. Determination as to the assertion of defect in indication

The Defendant’s manual (Evidence B 2) states that “I will read this manual in depth before using it, keep it for smooth driving, and comply with the following guidelines in order to prevent any damage or injury to users or others”, “I will see if I will cause property damage and human life damage”, “I will use it in a narrow space.”, and “I will use it as a product for general use.”, and “I will use it for commercial and industrial purposes.”

In this regard, the plaintiff alleged that the product constitutes a defect in its indication, since there is no provision that "the fire may occur in the event of use for commercial and industrial purposes". However, the product's labeling is clearly stated as above, and all accidents that may arise in the event of carrying a caution or gold in its use, and it does not need to be listed daily, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted."

3. Conclusion

On the premise that the defendant's defect is presumed to be defective or that there is a defect in indication, the prior plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as there is no reason, even if not judged as to the amount of damages, etc.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just to conclude this conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.