Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The status of the parties is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, collecting, leasing, and providing services, etc. electronic machinery, tools, and related parts thereof, which was manufactured and sold C mobile phones (hereinafter “instant products”) from August 19, 2016, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) purchased the instant products from the Defendant.
B. (1) On August 24, 2016, an explosion accident occurred during the charging of the instant product, and subsequent explosion accidents occurred, the Defendant suspended the domestic sales of the instant product on August 31, 2016, and announced the entire recall of the instant product on September 2, 2016. (2) The U.S. Consumer Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Federal Aviation Agency (FA) recommended the suspension of the charging and use of the instant product on September 8, 2016. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport recommended the suspension of the charging and use of the instant product on September 10, 2016.
3) On September 10, 2016, the Defendant recommended buyers to suspend the use of the instant product, and from September 12, 2016, the Defendant lent the instant product to customers who purchased the instant product, and from September 19, 2016, exchanged the instant product as a new product with the distribution market replaced by the distribution market. C. The suspension of the sales of the instant product began to sell the instant product with the distribution market replaced from October 1, 2016, but there was a new product again. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (hereinafter “National Technical Standard Institute”).
On October 11, 2016, the Defendant recommended the suspension of use, exchange and new sale of the instant product, and eventually, the Defendant suspended the sale and exchange of the instant product on the same day.
In this case.