1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) concluded that the Defendant would be provided with a toxic air rupture to manufacture an air rupture for automobiles, and manufactured an air rupture for automobiles using the original rupture supplied by the Defendant from early 2015.

(2) On June 12, 2016, the report was broadcast on the fact that ethyl lusium (OIT; hereinafter “OIT”) ingredients, which were toxic substances contained in humidifier disinfectant, were detected in the air rupture for automobiles. The Plaintiff requested the rupture of the rupture, which was manufactured using the rupture supplied by the Defendant, to examine whether the rupture was included in the rupture, and as a result, was found to have discovered OIT ingredients in 2600g/km.

(3) Although the Defendant, according to the original supply contract with the Plaintiff, has a duty to provide the original unit secured with anti-grhesion while being toxic in accordance with the original supply contract, it supplied the original unit of an anti-gropter containing toxic substance in the course of anti-gropic treatment.

This is because the defendant did not properly perform his obligation under the original supply contract, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the non-performance of obligation under Article 390 of the Civil Code.

(4) In relation to the incident of humidifier disinfectant occurred in around 2011, the Defendant used a medicine containing OIT ingredients, a toxic substance, which may cause serious harm to human health, in a press report, even if it was sufficiently recognizable that the toxic substance would seriously harm the health of the users of the vehicle if it is included in a toxic substance, as in the case of an incident of humidifier disinfectant that occurred in the year 201, and even if it was sufficiently recognizable that it would cause serious harm to the health of the users of the vehicle if it was included in a toxic substance, the Defendant used a medicine containing an OIT ingredients, which is a toxic substance, while treating the rupture of the rupture for automobiles.