본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
창원지방법원마산지원 2019.02.19 2017가단104517

1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from August 16, 2016 to February 19, 2019 for each of the KRW 11,926,032 and each of the said money to Plaintiff B and C.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff B and C (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs and wife”) purchased two (including exclusive smelling cost and mix package) totaling KRW 2,270,00,00 from July 20, 201, which were produced by the Defendant’s electric lele (title E: E, model: F’s basic model, and its design and color changed. The date of manufacture: December 2014).

B. On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff C: (a) opened the instant products in the order of wooden plates, strings, and smells on the strings (hereinafter “instant products”); (b) Plaintiff C’s part of the Plaintiff’s building and the office fixtures of the Plaintiffs were damaged, which occurred in the wooden board and the net container strings (hereinafter “instant products”).

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

Meanwhile, prior to the date of the manufacture of the instant product, the Defendant’s side has advertised the instant product to the effect that “the Defendant’s electric recognition may be installed and used under the supervision such as tree table.”

In addition, the operating manual of the same model prepared by the defendant is stated as the "TYPE: TYPE: Suffs and the table attachment."

Because of the instant fire, Plaintiff A received insurance money from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “insurance company”) KRW 90,330,658 (the part of the building, KRW 77,076,958, and the part of the house, KRW 13,253,700).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-12 evidence (including additional number), Eul 1-5 evidence and video, plaintiff C's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Product Liability Act, regardless of whether the manufacturer has fulfilled the duty of care in manufacturing and processing the product, where the product could not be safe due to the manufacturing and processing of the product differently from the originally intended design (manufacture defect), where the product could not be safe due to reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or other indication (remark defect).