logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2015나2026410
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a stem cell research and production sales business, and the Defendant is a company that operates a low temperature container import and sale business, etc.

B. The Defendant imported a liquid hydrogen tank (S-480 CRYGEIC LN2 TN2 TNK, hereinafter “instant tank”) from an overseas manufacturer, and supplied it in Korea.

C. On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant tank from Tymian Co., Ltd. to keep stem cells that need to be maintained at a low temperature. D.

The Plaintiff used to charge hydrogen to the instant tank at an average weekly intervals. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) caused an accident involving the Plaintiff’s filling of hydrogen; and (b) the occurrence of an occurrence of an accident involving the total increase of nitrogen oxides inside the instant tank (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff kept the stem cell in the instant tank, and inspected the amount of liquid nitrogen at least 2-3 times a week, and used the tank of this case at average intervals pursuant to normal usage, such as the charge of liquefied nitrogen and the strict restriction on the entry of the storage place. As the accident of this case occurred, most of the stem cell oil stored in the instant tank was damaged.

The instant accident was caused by the destruction of a sacratal state due to sacratulous heat on the entrance side of the instant tank. Thus, the instant tank is defective in manufacturing design.

In addition, if the defendant explained the method of handling the tank of this case, the matters of attention, and the method of responding to the emergency situation or displayed on the tank of this case, the above damage would have been reduced or exempted.

arrow