1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, the part (2) (2) of the “Defendant’s assertion” (2) of the Product Liability Act applies preferentially to the liability for damages caused by the “defect” of a product, and the Product Liability Act applies to the Defendant in preference to the Civil Act, while the statute of limitations for the damage liability against the fire of this case has expired, it violates the intent of the Product Liability Act and the purport of separately establishing

Therefore, the defendant does not bear tort liability under the Civil Act.

② Even if tort liability is applied under the Civil Act, there is no assertion as to the specific manufacturing negligence of the air conditioners of this case, and the causation between such negligence and the fire of this case.

③ The extinctive prescription of the damage claim due to the tort under the Civil Act against the Defendant has run since the date of supply of the product.

④ Even if the Defendant’s liability is recognized, the responsibility should be limited.

B. From No. 5 to No. 7 of the judgment of the first instance court

4. Determination on a claim for damages due to a tort under the Civil Act

A. Whether tort liability is excluded under the Civil Act or not, the claim for damages under the Product Liability Act and the claim for damages due to tort under the Civil Act are separate claims with the requirements for establishment and the duration of liability, and the provisions of the Product Liability Act do not exclude the application

In addition, interpreting as alleged by the defendant is fair and reasonable as to the defect of products manufactured in large quantity due to the lack of high technology.