The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation shall be dismissed.

Basic Facts

The reasoning of this Court concerning this part is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Plaintiff

The main point of the argument is that the accident of this case occurred due to the design and manufacturing defects inside the MOF of this case. Thus, the defendant is a manufacturer of the MOF of this case and is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

Judgment

A manufacturer who manufactures and sells goods of relevant legal principles is liable to manufacture and sell a product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of its distribution in terms of its structure, quality, performance, etc. In the event any damage occurs to consumers due to any defect in safety and durability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da2092, Jan. 25, 197; 92Da18139, Nov. 24, 1992). Meanwhile, if a manufacturer is liable to compensate the manufacturer for damage due to any defect in a product manufactured in large quantity with high technology concentration, the manufacturing process of the product can only be seen by the manufacturer, who is an expert, and whether such defect has occurred due to such defect in general, it is difficult for the manufacturer to prove that the defect in the product and the causal relationship between the defect and the damage caused by the defect in the product is ordinarily and technically in the area of the manufacturer's exclusive use without any other accident in the area of the manufacturer's negligence.