1. On August 11, 2019, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) imported and sold the house of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2019, the Defendant purchased the original Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro

B. On August 11, 2019, the Defendant, at his own home located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, caused an accident where the part of the Defendant’s body was broken and the left hand of the Defendant, while he did not cut the knife while knife the knife of the instant knife while knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time, the Defendant used “the method of cutting off the Jinsu’s knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knifek from

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry or video of Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Defendant asserted by the parties, in the event that the instant accident occurred due to the destruction of a man-made disease while cutting off the cracker in a daily method using the cracker, such as a usual cracker, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff who imported and sells the instant cracker was liable for damages caused by the instant accident, and the Plaintiff cannot be liable for the product due to the lack of defects in the instant cracker’s disease, and thus, sought confirmation of the non-existence of the liability.

3. Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Act provides that a manufacturer shall only cause damage to life, body, or property due to a defect of a product.