1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. Basic facts

A. The background of the accident - around March 2013, the Defendant installed a low temperature storage room in the manufacturer’s “D” of the manufacturing company located in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun.

At the time, the Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s trade name “E” and operated the business.

- On July 21, 2013, the occurrence of an accident which became unusable due to over-18∑C (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The cause of the instant accident is because the temperature control mechanism of the said low temperature storage was not operated properly due to the reason in the United States.

(Establishment temperature of the low temperature storage height is -2∑C). D side of the instant accident incurred a loss of 36 million won in the amount of KRW 36 million.

- The above temperature control is produced by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Research”).

G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) as an insurer of product liability insurance, which is the insured of the manufacture liability insurance as the insured, has compensated for KRW 36 million on the D side.

B. The circumstances leading up to the previous litigation - G is the Defendant or the title holder of the external establishment, who actually established the low temperature storage machine in D as seen earlier by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the plaintiff by asserting that it was caused by his negligence.

(Seoul Central 2014da5052837). The Plaintiff’s negligence asserted by G is that “(i) the temperature control device was installed differently from the circuit level provided by the manufacturer, and (ii) the manufacturer failed to comply with the direction, despite the fact that the manufacturer ordered to install an excessive cooling or a double safety device.”

- However, G applied for payment of KRW 28.8 million (= KRW 36 million x 80%) on the ground that the reason for excessive temperature control period was not clearly revealed, namely, that is, the reason for failure to function properly, by itself, limited the Plaintiff’s responsibility to 80%.

- In the above case, G’s assertion was accepted and the judgment of service was rendered to fully accept the claim, and it became final and conclusive.

- The Plaintiff’s status around October 27, 2017.