Liability of manufacturers of insects and losses caused by crops not subject to the taxation of insects specified in the application;

If the target crops have used the insects specified as the "o" for the gambling, it shall not be deemed that they have been reasonably used in accordance with ordinary directions. Therefore, even if the growth of the above woodland has been suspended due to the efficacy of the aboveide, it cannot be deemed as the defect of the aboveide. Therefore, the person who manufactured the insects shall not be liable for damages.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Article 88

Jeonjin Industrial Company

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 18,00,000 won with interest rate of 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

On March 1986, the Plaintiff installed a plastic house on the 1,800 square meters of 1,870 square meters from the orchard in Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Gyeong-dong, 1986, and cultivated the growth and growth swimming to the extent equal to that of the ordinary year. On May 1, 1986, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties concerned as to: (a) “Paides manufactured by the Defendant Company” diversizing the “Paides” to 500 litress of water to 100 litress of water; (b) divers of the above 1800 square meters of water; and (c) the growth of the above swimming was suspended thereafter, thereby resulting in the loss of the value of the goods as the goods.

First of all, the plaintiff asserts that compensation for damages is sought due to the defect of noise caused by the defendant company's production. Thus, in a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by the defect of a false product, it is very difficult for the plaintiff, which is the consumer, to assert and prove the existence of the defect and the time of the occurrence of the defect. In such a case, the plaintiff, the consumer, even though he reasonably uses the product in accordance with ordinary usage, it is presumed that the product was damaged by the use. But if it is proved that the damage was caused by the use, it is presumed that the product was defective. And Eul No. 1, which can be recognized by the witness witness's testimony, and Eul No. 4, which can be established by the witness's testimony, and Eul's statement No. 4 (each photograph), which is all the purpose of pleading, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff used the product as a "explosion," because it can not be seen that it is an "explosiond," and it can not be seen that it is an "explodedd with red pest."

원고는 또 주장하기를 경북 성주군 (주소 생략)에서 (상호 생략)를 경영하는 소외 1로부터 위 살란피를 구입하였는데 위 소외인은 대구에 있는 피고회사 제품의 농약도매상인 (상호 생략)를 경영하는 소외 2와 피고회사 대구출장도 직원인 소외 3이 수박의 진딧물 구충에 "살란피"가 효과가 좋다는 적극권유에 따라 이를 대량구입하였다면서 원고에게 수박의 진딧물 구충을 위하여서도 위 살란피를 사용할 수 있다고 말하므로 위"살란피"를 구입하여 살포함으로써 위와 같은 손해를 입게 되었으므로 그 손해의 배상을 구한다는 것이므로 살피건대, 위 주장에 부합하는 듯한 증인 배대식, 소외 1의 일부 증언은 선뜻 믿기 어렵고 달리 피고회사측이나 그 도매상에서 위 살란피를 수박에 사용해도 좋다고 말했다고 볼만한 증거없고 그밖에 달리 원고가 입은 위 손해가 피고회사가 제조한 위 살란피의 결함으로 인한 것이라고 볼만한 증거가 없으므로(더구나 증인 서우선의 증언에 의하여 성립을 인정할 수 있는 을 제5호증의 기재 및 같은 증언에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 경상북도는 1986.5.경 위 성주군에 살란피로 인한 약해로 수박재배농가가 큰 손해를 입었다는 진정에 따라 이 살란피를 임의로 수거하여 농약연구소에 성분검사를 의뢰하고 위 농약연구소가 이에 따라 조생종 수박을 재배하면서 살란피를 살포해 본 결과 기준농도인 600배로 희석하여 살포한 경우에는 수박에 아무런 약해가 나타나지 아니하고 기준농도의 배로 진하게 희석하여 살포한 경우에 그 약해가 일부 잎의 가장자리에 흑갈색 약반이 나타나는 극히 경미한 정도에 불고하고 별다른 약해가 없는 것으로 시험결과가 드러난 사실을 인정할 수 있어 이에 비추어 보면 원고주장처럼 기준농도보다 더 묽게 1,000배 정도로 희석하여 살란피를 살포한 경우에 이로인하여 수박의 생장이 거의 완전히 정지하여 버렸다고 선뜻 믿기 어렵다 할 것이다)결국 원고의 주장은 나머지 점에 더 나아가 볼 것없이 받아들일 수 없다 할 것이다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is clearly groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)