1. All the accidents described in the separate sheet against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company manufacturing a distribution system, such as a line-type multiple stamping, and the defendant is a person who has purchased and used a line-type multi-use stamp (6 pages) manufactured by the plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant multi-use stamp”).

B. On March 28, 2014, around 16:06, at the time of the accident where a fire occurred in the behind the TV decoration 107 Dong 305 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in the ward located in the Busan Suwon-gu B apartment 107 Dong 305 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the inside of the apartment was destroyed by the fire (hereinafter “the instant fire”), and there was a mick seal installed in the following behind the TV decoration gate manufactured by the Plaintiff.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (if any, including each number), Busan Metropolitan City Southern Fire Station, the electricity of the Dong Science University and the professor C respectively, the purport of the entire arguments and arguments

2. The plaintiff asserted that the fire of this case occurred a "twitning" phenomenon due to the damage of clothes caused by the transformation and voltage by the heat of TV. The plaintiff asserted that the fire of this case did not result from the defect of the distance stamping of this case, and that the plaintiff is not liable to compensate the defendant for the damage caused by the fire of this case.

The defendant asserts that since the fire of this case was caused by the defect of the multi-use stamp, the plaintiff is responsible for compensating the defendant for damages caused by the fire of this case.

3. Determination

(a)in the event that a manufacturer is liable to compensate for any defect in a product manufactured in large quantities due to the concentration of relevant legal technologies, whether only the manufacturer, who is an expert, has any defect in the product;