2014 Gohap 563032 Damage, Claim

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative D, mother E

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

Since it is a minor, the father of parental authority I and the mother J

9. I

10. J.

11. K;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative L/M

12. L.

13. M;

1. Furcol company;

2. Korea;

October 20, 2016

November 15, 2016

1. Defendant Furd Co., Ltd.:

A. With respect to Plaintiff A, 100,000,000 won for Plaintiff B, 100,000,000,0000 won for Plaintiff F, and 100,000,000,000 won for Plaintiff G, and each of the above amounts for Plaintiff B, 5% per annum for Plaintiff B, from June 2, 2011 to January 4, 2015, from the following day to September 30, 2015, 20% per annum for Plaintiff F, and from the next day to the day of full payment; and

B. Plaintiff H 30,00,000 won, Plaintiff J 20,000 won, Plaintiff J 40,000,000 won, Plaintiff K 30,000,000 won, Plaintiff L 10,000,000 won for Plaintiff L, and 10,000,000 won for Plaintiff J, Plaintiff I, and for Plaintiff J, from April 5, 201 for Plaintiff J, from May 1, 201 to May 9, 201, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 5% per annum for Plaintiff L, respectively.

2. The remaining claims against Defendant CF Co., Ltd. by Plaintiffs A, B, F, Plaintiff G, Plaintiff H, Plaintiff J, Plaintiff J, Plaintiff K, Plaintiff L, and Plaintiff M, and the plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Republic of Korea are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiffs A, B, F, Plaintiff G, Plaintiff H, Plaintiff J, Plaintiff J, Plaintiff K, Plaintiff L, Plaintiff M and Defendant C F, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Republic of Korea, are assessed against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to Plaintiff C 31,045,408 won, 10,000 won to Plaintiff D, 10,000,000 won to Plaintiff E, and 5% per annum from January 15, 2010 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 100,00,000, KRW 100,000 to Plaintiff B, KRW 100,000,00 to Plaintiff F, KRW 100,000 to Plaintiff G, and KRW 100,00,00 to Plaintiff G, KRW 200,00 to Plaintiff B, from June 2, 2011, KRW 5% per annum from May 1, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case to Plaintiff F, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff H KRW 30,00,00, KRW 20,000 to Plaintiff I, KRW 40,000,00 to Plaintiff J, KRW 30,000, KRW 10,000 to Plaintiff L, KRW 10,000 to Plaintiff L, and KRW 10,00,00 to Plaintiff M, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff H, I, and KRW 10,00,00 to Plaintiff J, from April 5, 201, to Plaintiff K, and KRW 10,00 to Plaintiff J, respectively, from May 1, 2011 to April 29, 201; KRW 5% per annum from the following day to the date of delivery of a copy of the instant application for modification of the claims and the cause of claims; and KRW 10,00 per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

1) Defendant PGHOligo (2-etpythythythroide) manufactured and sold “PGHOligo (2-ethoxy) products of humidifier disinfectant (hereinafter “the humidifier disinfectant of this case”) as its main raw material, for the purpose of supplying and selling pathogenic microorganisms and antibiotic products.”

2) The parents of the network N (0 birth, death on June 2, 201), the parents of the Plaintiff D, and E, the Plaintiff C’s parents, the Plaintiff F, and G, and the Plaintiff I, and the J are the parents of the Plaintiff H, the Plaintiff L, and M.

B. The Plaintiffs’ use of humidifier disinfectant and the occurrence of damage to the cause thereof

1) From October 2010 to April 201, Plaintiff A and B used the instant humidifier disinfectant for the purpose of the network N. After that, the network N was caused by stroke and other drugs, and was treated by the stroke and other drugs at the Seoul Alternative Hospital, but died on June 2, 201 with the dystrophic strophism caused by liveric pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary disease and ples, etc.

2) 원고 D, E는 2008, 2.경부터 2009. 12.경까지는 롯데마트에서 구매한 와이즐렉 가습기살균제를, 2009. 12.경부터 2010. 1.경까지는 옥시싹싹 가습기살균제를 원고 C을 위하여 사용하였다. 그 후 원고 C은 2010. 1. 7. R병원에서 급성간질성 폐렴으로 진단을 받고 2010. 1. 16. S병원으로 이송되어 중환자실에서 입원치료를 받았다.

3) From May 201 to April 201, Plaintiff F and G used the instant humidifier disinfectant for the purpose of the network P. After that, on April 12, 2011, the net P had symptoms of being affected and reduced. Accordingly, on the part of the patient room in Samsung Seoul Hospital, the medical treatment was provided with acute respiratory part, waste pulmonary part, pulmonary partic partic partic partic partic partic partic partic participant partic partic partic partic participant partic partic participant partic partic participant partic partic participant partic partic partic participant partic partic partic participant partic partic participant partic partic partic particip

4) Plaintiff I and J used the instant humidifier disinfectant for Plaintiff H from around December 201 to April 201. After that, Plaintiff H was hospitalized in the hospital due to the symptoms of the cause, but as it did not take place, Plaintiff H was hospitalized in the Seoul National University Hospital as of April 6, 201 to June 25, 201, and received treatment due to an ambiguous organ pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary ur.

5) Plaintiff L and M used the instant humidifier disinfectant for Plaintiff K from October 201 to March 201. After that, Plaintiff K was hospitalized in Samsung Seoul Hospital from April 29, 201 to October 1, 2011, and was hospitalized in the instant humidifier disinfectant for the purpose of Plaintiff K. Accordingly, Plaintiff K was hospitalized in the instant humidifier disinfectant for the purpose of the Plaintiff K. From October 29, 2011.

C. The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) issued by the Ministry of Health and Welfare as a result of an interim epidemiological investigation of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) revealed that the humidifier disinfectant was presumed to be a risk factor on the ground that a patient was destroyed by a non-defensive damage caused by the cause as seen above, and that an epidemiological investigation was related to a humidifier disinfectant, and that the results of the interim investigation were announced on August 31, 201 and the results of the interim investigation: ① the possibility of causing non-defensive damage caused by a humidifier disinfectant group is higher than the non-use group; ② the patient appears to have been damaged by clinical disinfectant group; ③ the time of occurrence is determined to have caused damage by clinical disinfectant to a certain extent after the main use of the humidifier disinfectant; but at the present time it was not proven that a certain causal relationship was not established, and recommended the citizens to refrain from using the humidifier disinfectant and to refrain the manufacturer of the humidifier disinfectant until the final result.

라. 질병관리본부의 결과 발표 질병관리본부는 2011. 11. 11. '지난 9월경부터 3가지 가습기살균제 제품에 대한 동물흡입독성실험을 실시한 결과 옥시싹싹 가습기당번(PHMG)과 이 사건 가습기살균제 (PHG)에서 인체 폐손상 증세와 같은 세기관지 염증, 세기관지내 상피세포 탈락, 초기 섬유화 등의 이상소견을 확인하여, 오는 12월 중으로 모든 가습기살균제를 의약외품으로 지정할 예정이며, 이달 중으로 정부합동 TF를 구성해 기타 생활화학가정용품에 대한 안전성 검증체계를 가동할 계획'이라고 발표하였다.

(e) An investigation by the Waste Damage Investigation Committee;

1) After the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an investigation to determine whether the reported cases that are suspected to cause health damage due to exposure to humidifier disinfectants by using a humidifier disinfectant damage investigation committee, based on clinical trials and environmental investigations, were conducted in order to determine whether or not the damage to the health was caused by humidifier disinfectants. Specifically, the need to investigate the damage caused by humidifier disinfectants on December 6, 2012, conducted a medical examination and environmental investigation from July 2013 to September 201 of the same year, and conducted a determination procedure from around September 2013 to November 201 of the same year. The results of the determination were presented as "unable certainty," "high possibility," "no possibility," "no possibility," "no possibility," and "no possibility," respectively.

2) As a result of the above investigation, the network N was determined as being almost certain; Plaintiff C was rarely certain; the network P was determined as being able to increase; Plaintiff H was almost certain; and Plaintiff J was almost rarely certain.

[Recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 8, 10 through 13, and 19 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Ra hospital and Sa hospital's fact-finding inquiry results, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Furcians

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff A, etc.

Although the humidifier disinfectant of this case contains hazardous material that may cause fatal damage to the respiratory body, such as human waste, Defendant CF displayed the phrase “safety at the time of contamination and damage to the human body” on the container while selling the humidifier disinfectant of this case. Accordingly, Defendant CF, as the manufacturer of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff A, etc. who suffered damage to the life or body due to the design and indication defect of the humidifier disinfectant of this case pursuant to the Product Liability Act.

2) Defendant Furcian

There is no causal link between the use of the humidifier disinfectant of this case and the damage to victims or the death of the victim caused by the damage or death caused by the damage or death caused by the humidifier disinfectant of this case manufactured by Defendant 3 Fur.

B. Establishment of product liability

1) Whether there is a design defect

A) Relevant legal principles

Generally, a manufacturer or seller of a product must manufacture a product with safety within the expected range in light of the current technical level, economic feasibility, etc. In light of the product’s structure, quality, performance, etc., and shall be held liable for tort if damage was incurred to the user due to such defect. In such a case, the manufacturer’s failure to adopt a reasonable alternative design could have reduced or avoided damage or risk if the product had been manufactured by the manufacturer, which caused the product to be safe, should be determined in light of social norms, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the product’s characteristics and usage; (b) the user’s expectation and content of the product; (c) foreseeable risks; (d) the user’s awareness of the risks; (d) the possibility of avoiding risks by the product; and (e) the relative advantages of the adopted design and alternative design; and (e) the manufacturer or user’s liability for damages arising from a defect that could have been caused by a high level of technology and/or a defect that could normally have been caused by a lack of performance and technical burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da173333).

B) Determination

The term "design defect" in the Product Liability Act means a case where the product was not safe because the manufacturer could have reduced or avoided damage or risk if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design (see Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Product Liability Act) and failed to adopt the alternative design (see Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Product Liability Act). In light of this, the existence of design defect in the humidifier disinfectant of this case shall be examined.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal principles and evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 13 comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant 3F seems to have a design defect using PGH in the instant humidifier disinfectant.

(1) The humidifier disinfectant of this case is used to collect approximately 2/3 of the volume of raw disinfectant lids, and then put them in replacement of damp water ( approximately 10ml per water 2-3L), and then in replacement of damp water.

(2) Under the above normal usage, the victims used the humidifier disinfectant in the instant case, and applied to the hospital due to symptoms such as a parassis or a difficulty in respiratory, etc., and were subject to the diagnosis of pulmonary damage caused commonly.

(3) The main ingredients of the humidifier disinfectant of this case are PGH, and if the water divers, which were melted through moisture, come into the air, PGH’s response will be formed by the air, which was melting in water. Since the size of the PGH is very small, the cGH’s entrance is flicking with the depth of the waste dynasium or waste dynasium without coming from the above Do, such as C, etc., and due to its toxic nature, it leads to a certain gap in waste dynasium and waste dysium.

(4) While rapidly proceeding with the symptoms due to the stimulation of PGH’s self-harm, it is hard to duplicate the waste as a whole by being diagnosed with acute liverness or fiberis together with a fiberis, and shows severe acute huplicative disorder, and does not seem to have any reaction with the treatment of general artificial absorption devices. Due to the rapid increase of the rupture resistance, in order to supply the air to the muplice, it has very little power, and as a result, the air has to tear due to the high pressure, and the air has to cut, and the air has to be cut, discarded, type of shock, and avoiding species. Meanwhile, the death of a person who is unable to recover while going through the same process, and as for those who have not died, there remains a buplicized opinion centered on the end period, and in order to observe the opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of opinion of oriented mar film.

(5) At the time of exposure to a humidifier disinfectant for 13 weeks in the same manner as being exposed to the human body, a pulmonary abnormal pulmonary check was mainly observed, such as influent respiratory and the increase in the frequency of respiratory and the decrease in body, and an abnormal pulmonary check was mainly observed in the pathology test.

(6) Ordinaryly, infectious diseases are mitigated by administration of drugs such as stheme, and in the case of pulmonary damage caused by humidifier disinfectant users, they did not respond to the existing pharmacologic treatment. The relevant patients did not discover spawn, spawn and virus pathogens related to the pulmonary fiber, and the relevant patients did not comply with the organizational pathology and clinical opinions, and thus, experts determined that the pulmonary damage caused to the relevant patients was unlikely to be infectious diseases.

(7) On August 201, 201, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a notice that the cause of damage to collective severe damage was presumed to be a humidifier disinfectant as a result of an epidemiological investigation and research, and issued an interim and final test result to confirm the relevance of damage to the humidifier disinfectant of this case to the humidifier disinfectant of this case on November 201 and February 2012.

(8) In light of the above facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that there was a defect in response to the humidifier disinfectant in the instant humidifier disinfectant, and the victims may recognize the fact that the said humidifier disinfectant was damaged by life or body even though it was used as a normal usage. Nevertheless, Defendant Cur did not prove that the victims suffered damage due to any cause other than the defect in the humidifier disinfectant in the instant humidifier disinfectant, and thus, it is presumed that there was a defect in the instant humidifier disinfectant and that the damage was caused to the victims.

2) Whether there is a defect in indication

A) Relevant legal principles

If a manufacturer, etc. fails to provide reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that could have reduced or avoided damage or risk caused by the product, then the manufacturer, etc. may be held liable for the tort against the defect in the indication. Determination as to whether such defect exists shall be made in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the characteristics of the product, ordinary usage, users’ expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, users’ awareness of the risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by the user (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17333, Sept. 5, 2003).

B) Determination

"Defects in the Product Liability Act" means cases where a manufacturer could have reduced or avoided damage or risk caused by the product if he/she had given a reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication (Article 2 subparagraph 2 (c) of the Product Liability Act). Therefore, it is examined whether the phrases stated in the humidifier disinfectant container of this case have any indication defect.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 15, it is recognized that the containers of the humidifier disinfectant of this case contain the following phrases: 'the removal of harmful germs, such as dump, waste confum, etc., 'the fump fump', 'the fump fump fump', 'the brand of the Flusium fumbrush used widely in the European environmental state with the approval of the EU, 'the brand of the Flusium PGH', 'the safety level at the time of inhalement ( OECD 423: xic fifed), 'the completion of the international standard test for the use of the fumbrat substances approved by the EU', etc.

According to the following circumstances, the humidifier disinfectant of this case seems to have a defect in indication in light of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire arguments as a whole.

(1) The humidifier disinfectant in this case is used in the damp water when replacing the damp water. The safety of the humidifier disinfectant is most important because it is an environment where people, who are influent at the habiting season, are breadles and inhaled into the human body in most cases where they are used in a sealed space, such as flusium, pregnant women, the elderly, etc. who are vulnerable to health, or people whose water-saving capacity is weak or whose water-saving capacity is deteriorated, are used in a sealed space.

(2) The users of the humidifier disinfectant in this case expect that they do not have any side effect on the product or do not take any additional safety preventive measures because the safety function of the product is complete, on the basis of the phrases such as the "human damage" and the "safety at the time of inhalement" indicated in the container.

(3) In addition, Defendant Fur also indicated that PGH, the main ingredients of the instant humidifier disinfectant, was imported from Denmark, the country of origin, as if it were a safe ingredient widely used in Europe.

(4) However, at the time, Defendant CF did not have any objective ground for PGH’s safe ingredients of human body, and rather, according to the findings of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, PGH was closely related to the pulmonary damage.

(5) The instant humidifier disinfectant users are bound to rely entirely on the information presented by Defendant CF because it is difficult for them to objectively understand the safety, hazard, etc. of the said product, and thus, they were bound to believe the indications listed in the instant humidifier disinfectant container.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, there is a design and indication defect in the humidifier disinfectant manufactured and sold by Defendant 3 Fur, and the victims caused damage to their life and body. Accordingly, Defendant 3 Fur is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff, etc. for the damage caused by the defects of the humidifier disinfectant pursuant to Article 3 of the Product Liability Act.

(c) Scope of damages;

1) In calculating consolation money due to a tort, the court’s standard for calculating consolation money also accords with the principle of fair liability for damages, such as the victim’s age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from the damage, degree of negligence, motive for the harmful act, reason, perpetrator’s property status, social status, age, and attitude of the perpetrator after the accident, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7149, Dec. 24, 2009).

2) Determination of consolation money

The aforementioned facts and evidence Nos. 4 through 7, and 19 comprehensively considered the purport of the oral argument, namely, ① Defendant CF made the humidifier disinfectant of this case, stating that there is no objective proof data that the humidifier disinfectant of this case did not harm the human body, and caused collective damage to the users who believe the safety of the humidifier disinfectant of this case and purchased the humidifier disinfectant of this case. ② The network N was deceased due to the use of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, 10 months old, and 10 months old, and the suffering of the family members of this case appears to be serious. Although the normal life of Plaintiff H, K, and J did not result in death, it is expected that the damage to the human body or their family members would be significantly high, ③ Defendant CF did not claim compensation or consolation money for the victims of this case, as it did not appear to have any causal relationship between the death or injury of the victims of the humidifier disinfectant of this case and the victims, ③ Defendant CF did not claim compensation or consolation money for the victims of this case, as the parents of the victims of this case.

A) Plaintiff A: KRW 10 million, Plaintiff B: KRW 100 million.

B) Plaintiff F: KRW 10 million; KRW 30 million; KRW 10 million; KRW 10 million; KRW 20 million; KRW 10 million for Plaintiff H’s injury, which is his/her spouse; KRW 40 million; KRW 40 million for the injury of Plaintiff J, which is his/her spouse; KRW 30 million for the injury of Plaintiff H, his/her child; KRW 10 million for the injury of Plaintiff J

D) Plaintiff K: 30 million won, Plaintiff L: 10 million won, Plaintiff M: 10 million won, and Plaintiff M: 10 million won.

3) Sub-decisions

A) Therefore, Defendant Fururc has an obligation to pay Plaintiff A 10 million won as consolation money, KRW 100,000, KRW 1000,000 to Plaintiff B, KRW 100,000,000 to Plaintiff G, and KRW 100,000,000 to Plaintiff G, and KRW 150,000 after the date of tort, as the above Plaintiffs seek, from June 2, 2011, the date of death of the network N, KRW 15% of the annual interest rate from May 1, 2011 to May 1, 201, and KRW 15,00 from the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to September 30, 2015, KRW 20% of the annual interest rate of KRW 15,00,000, and KRW 155,000 of the annual interest rate of KRW 15,05,000,000 under the main text of the above Special Act.

B) In addition, Defendant Fur 30,00,000 won for consolation money, 20,000, 40,000,000,000 won for Plaintiff J, 30,000,000 won for Plaintiff K, 10,000, 10,0000 won for Plaintiff L, and 10,000,0000 for Plaintiff L, and 10,000,000 for each of the above amounts after the date of tort, the above Plaintiffs’ legal interest rate of 15,00,000 annual interest rate of 15,00,000 from 20,000 to 15,000,0000 per annum from 15,000 to 15,000,000,0000 per annum under the main sentence of Article 15,5,0000,000 interest rate of 1,5,016,000 per annum from the date of enforcement of the lawsuit.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

① From the late 190s, the academic community of the Republic of Korea has continuously reported and announced the cases where infants died of the disease caused by the pulmonary disease. ② In the early 2000s, research was conducted and announced on the medical department’s responsibilities. ③ From the mid-2000s, the health authorities knew that chemical ingredients included in humidifier disinfectant are dangerous and may cause non-verification diseases. (4) In particular, since around 2008, the health authorities neglected the situation where the relevant humidifier disinfectant was used in the instant humidifier disinfectant since 200s, despite warning of the hazards of the relevant humidifier disinfectant ( particularly ethyl No. Television No. 1). (5) The Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, as the Ministry of Environment, did not request the release route of this material at the time of the examination of its harmfulness, and determined that it was necessary for the first time to use the relevant humidifier disinfectant products for the purpose of using it, including the first time after the examination of harmfulness of the relevant humidifier disinfectant products. (7) The Ministry of Environment, as the Ministry of Environment, even if it did not consider to use it.

B. Whether the State is liable for damages

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to recognize the State liability due to omission of a public official, as in cases where a public official acknowledges the State liability for compensation due to an act of a public official, it shall meet the requirements of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, which provides that "where a public official causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in violation of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes," and this does not mean where a public official explicitly violates the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, even though the statute explicitly provides for the duty to act of a public official, it does not mean cases where the State whose primary mission is to protect the lives, bodies, property, etc. of the people is to protect the lives, bodies, property, etc. of the people, unless it takes place first and second place within the scope of danger exclusion, unless it is based on the Act and subordinate statutes, it may be recognized that the State or the relevant public official has the duty to act in violation of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. However, if the public official performs his/her duties only in accordance with the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, it cannot be determined that the public official's duty to act or omission was seriously 50.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned legal principles and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 16 through 18, and 21, and the fact-finding response to the National Environmental Science Institute, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the State liability of the defendant Republic of Korea, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea shall not be accepted.

① Most evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs to recognize the State’s liability against Defendant Republic of Korea are newspaper articles (Evidence A, No. 9, 13, 17, 18, and 21) or news report materials (Evidence A, No. 16), and specifically, evidence proving the Plaintiffs’ assertion was not submitted.

② From March 2016, the Plaintiffs tried to honor the results of the investigation into humidifier disinfectants against Defendant Curur, etc. and to submit specific data related to Defendant’s national compensation liability to Defendant Republic of Korea. However, even until October 20, 2016, the date of the closure of the pleadings in the instant case, the instant case was eventually terminated without further investigation of evidence.

③ After the first launch into Korea in 1997, humidifier disinfectant maintained approximately KRW 600,00 for annual sales volume, and approximately KRW 2 billion for the market size based on sales volume. However, on August 31, 201, production was suspended after the recommendation to refrain the manufacturer of the Disease Control Headquarters. In foreign countries, the same case was found in clinical and organizational studies on the ground that humidifier disinfectant was included in the humidifier disinfectant as Korea.

④ Around 2006, the paper published a thesis called "X" in the Korean Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Esty Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy E.

(5) Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act defines toxic chemicals as "toxic substances, substances under observation, restricted substances or prohibited substances in need of handling, substances requiring preparation for accidents, and other chemicals that are harmful or likely to be harmful or harmful." Article 11 of the same Act provides that hazard reviews shall be conducted on new chemicals, or substances deemed necessary to be harmful or harmful, such as substances manufactured or imported in at least ten tons. The above hazard reviews have to be conducted through data, etc. submitted by the applicant. As a result of the hazard reviews on PGH around around 2003, the National Institute of Environmental Research in the Republic of Korea (A National Institute of Environment) determines that the hazardous substances do not constitute toxic substances or substances under observation because they do not cause toxic or non-toxic reactions, but are not substances causing excessive reaction, and that the Republic of Korea seems to have otherwise in accordance with the provisions of each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and that it was difficult to deem that it was negligent in performing its duty of care as a result of designating the hazardous substances itself and data submitted by the applicant.

(6) Under the Industrial Products Safety Act, an industrial product subject to safety control is classified into industrial products subject to safety certification, industrial products subject to safety self-regulation, safety and quality labelling (see Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the same Act), and a manufacturer and importer of the said product constitutes an industrial product subject to safety self-regulatory confirmation in the event that the product is sold as refined agents (hereinafter referred to as "self-regulatory safety confirmation") and then make a report thereon (in the case of refined agents at the time, hazardous elements are prescribed to be tested for salt acid and sulfur oxide, fishery oxide and fishery chlorate, tetrachlorochlorochloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, etc. as harmful components as harmful components at the time). However, if the product is sold as humidifier agents, there is no basis for compelling the manufacturer to report on safety self-regulatory safety confirmation and safety confirmation, and in fact there is no manufacturer of damp agents’ voluntary safety confirmation and report. Accordingly, the Defendant’s industrial product as an industrial product did not have any obligation to verify the composition and hazards of humidifier disinfectant products and means of confirmation thereof.

(7) The Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc. shall recognize that an infectious disease is likely to break out and prevail to conduct an epidemiological investigation (see Article 18 of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act), and an unexpected acute pulmonary disease is not an infectious disease as prescribed by the above Act. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Defendant Republic of Korea neglected to perform an epidemiological investigation on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant Republic of Korea did not immediately conduct

8) Article 3(b) of the Ministry of Health and Welfare provides that “the scope of non-pharmaceutical drugs pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 7(c)9 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall be limited to the scope of non-pharmaceutical drugs.” Article 2 subparag. 7(3) of the same Act provides that “(a) alcohol, i.e., medication for disinfection and disinfection (including preparations used for dilution) not directly applied to the human body, i.e., alcohol, hyde, crokes, strokes, and stokes, ii) and other preparations used for the purpose of quarantine.” However, it cannot be deemed that the non-pharmaceutical drugs used for cleaning, such as the prevention of stoves, not infectious diseases, do not constitute non-pharmaceutical drugs prescribed in the above notification. Thus, it is difficult to deem that a public official of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff A et al.'s claim against defendant Furc is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim against the plaintiff et al. against defendant Curc and the plaintiffs' claim against defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge:

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges Kim Gung-Un

1) Plaintiff A, B, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M seeking damages against Defendant Furcur Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A, etc”).

2) Although Plaintiff A et al. did not specifically claim design defects, such as the circumstance that Defendant CF would have reduced or avoided damage or risk if Defendant CF would have employed a reasonable alternative design, it seems that the use of PGH, a dangerous substance harmful to the human body, for the humidifier disinfectant itself, seems to be a design defect.

3) On August 31, 201, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced an interim results of an epidemiological investigation on August 31, 201, and recommended to refrain from the use and release of humidifier disinfectant, and the manufacturer and seller of humidifier disinfectant, including the Ro-si, was at the risk of being held accountable for civil and criminal liability according to the final findings of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In order to secure favorable results of experiments for humidifier disinfectant manufacturers, on November 1201, Roh City made an illegal solicitation to the effect that, in order to secure the results of experiments favorable to the humidifier disinfectant manufacturers, Roh City, U and V professors, the results of the experiments can be achieved in accordance with the schedule of the results of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scheduled to be conducted, and that, in addition, if the humidifier disinfectant is used in an appropriate manner through the experiment, it is not harmful to the human body and that the damage caused to the humidifier disinfectant users may arise from any other cause than the humidifier disinfectant of Roh City, not the humidifier disinfectant of Roh City, and paid the money. The court recognized that W and U.S. prepared a report without careful research and careful consideration on the results of the exposure and evaluation test in the favorable position at Roh City, 20 years and fines of 2,500,000 won (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da1616416, Oct. 16, 2016).

4) Plaintiff A et al. claimed consolation money due to the instant humidifier disinfectant damage.

5) The Plaintiffs asserted that, in the case where the victim died in the complaint, the Plaintiff jointly succeeds to the compensation for the damage of the victim who died of his parents. However, in the preparatory brief dated August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff A, B, F, and G, who is the parents of P, sought compensation of KRW 100 million each from the Defendants as consolation money, appears to have not claimed consolation money against the Defendants.

6) Around that time, Plaintiff H commenced hospital treatment.

7) Around that time, Plaintiff K and J began hospital treatment.

(viii) a harmful impact occurring when he/she has been administered once;

9) The definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows:

7. The term "quasi-drugs" means articles designated by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, which fall under any of the following items (excluding articles which shall be used for the purposes referred to in subparagraph 4 (b) or (c)):

(c) Preparations used for sterilization, killing insects, and uses similar thereto for the purpose of preventing infectious diseases;