beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited each of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as "M". The plaintiff added the following 2. additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff seeks to make an additional lecture in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) The court of first instance cannot change the facts or judgments recognized by the court of first instance, even if the evidence examined by the court was presented. 2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that “N”, a derivative model manufactured by Defendant B, is the instant coolant, but it is insufficient to recognize that the fact-finding inquiry reply to the Korea Industrial Technology Laboratory on August 1, 2019 by this Court alone was a “N” model, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the air conditioners of this case are the "N" model of Defendant B, and that the fire occurred due to the outbreak of fire inside the air conditioners of this case. However, in order to ask product liability to the manufacturer, the consumer must first prove that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer. ① The fire site identification result (Evidence No. 10-1) of the Busan High Police Station may consider air conditioners due to water cleaning. ② The appraisal result of the National Science Investigation Institute of Korea is based on the results of appraisal, the possibility that the air conditioners and users' negligence, namely, the damage of clothes due to abnormal use, or the leakage due to damp infiltration, etc., can not be ruled out (Evidence No. 10-5 of the Evidence No. 10-5), even if the accident of this case occurred in the area of the Defendant B, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized under the exclusive control model.