1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the cited party members of the judgment of the court of first instance should explain this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part of the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s additional determination is negligent in the performance of duties, which did not attach such safety devices to the Defendant’s three industries, for the purpose of preventing butane gas accidents. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the manufacturers of other butane gas containers of this case of the instant Contac containers have sold by attaching CR methods, RVR methods, or singing safety devices.

The above argument that the plaintiff was added to the trial of the case, was that the defendant Syan industry, the manufacturer of the contact container of this case, did not have employed a reasonable alternative design. Thus, since there was "design defect" in Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Product Liability Act in the contact container of this case and the accident of this case occurred, the defendants seems to have the duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case in accordance with the Product Liability Act.

B. Generally, a person who manufactures and sells a product must manufacture a product with safety within the expected range in light of the current technical level and economic feasibility, etc. in terms of its structure, quality, and performance. In the event of damage to users due to a defect not meeting safety requirements, tort liability is held. Of these defects, the so-called design defect refers to the case where damage or risk would have been reduced if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design but could have avoided damage or risk if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design, and thus the product could not be safe.