logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2014가단112420
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On December 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant cosmetics from “C” corporation, but the seller of the instant cosmetics appears to be a personal entrepreneur (D) who uses the trade name “C”.

The cosmetics in the name of “E” (hereinafter “E”) were purchased and used.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Company against the Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

A. After using the cosmetic of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the entire face has run redly, and the string distance was showing symptoms, increase in the number of the skins even after the use was suspended, and there was a side effect leading to the sacrife of the skin.

The Defendant Company supplied the cosmetic of this case to C, which was provided by an unspecified person in name, not a normal distribution process, and the Plaintiff refused to provide information to the selling company. As such, the Defendant Company shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 55,000,000 ( KRW 2,000,000,000 for treatment and skin care expenses, future care expenses, and KRW 8,000,000 for lost income, KRW 15,00,000 for lost income, and KRW 30,000 for consolation money).

B. Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Defendant Company did not directly sell the instant cosmetics to the Plaintiff or manufacture the instant cosmetics. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant Company bears contractual liability as a seller of the instant cosmetics and bears product liability as a manufacturer.

In addition, considering that the plaintiff's assertion is not known to the manufacturer of the cosmetic of this case, the seller or the supplier of the cosmetic of this case did not notify the plaintiff who was the victim of the fact despite the fact that the manufacturer or the supplier was known or known.

arrow