1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff sold electric sets produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (the name of the goods: daily smart lines, model name: IW-FC11, manufacturing date: March 2009; hereinafter “instant electric sets”).

B. On March 25, 2014, around 01:07, the Defendant: (a) was able to turn on the instant electric sets at his dwelling room; and (b) was destroyed by a fire around the electric power source code of the instant electric sets; (c) the building and part of the household were destroyed.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including relevant numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was found in the temperature control mechanism code of the electric set of this case, and this was caused by the power source line divided into a small wave, etc., which was damaged by pressure or breaking multiple electric source codes on a multi- compound. Ultimately, the fire of this case is not a product defect, but due to negligence in the Defendant’s use.

Nevertheless, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to compensate for damages arising from the instant fire, so there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation of the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a case where an accident occurred while the product was normally used, in order to be liable for damages to the manufacturer on the ground of the defect of the product, the consumer must be deemed sufficient to prove that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer proves otherwise than the defect of the product, and that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and that the accident does not occur without the negligence of any person.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1671 Delivered on March 12, 2004