1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the Defendant’s determination as to the part emphasized by this court, as described in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the fact that the Defendant directly manufactured the instant invoice and sold and supplied it to the Plaintiff and other buyers, the Plaintiff is in the position of the manufacturer who manufactured the instant invoice. The instant invoice is defective in the manufacturing and design defect and indication, and the Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff who suffered damages due to the defect of the product pursuant to Article 3 of the Product Liability Act. 2) According to the Product Liability Act, the manufacturer who is liable for damages due to the defect of the product refers to “the manufacturer who manufactures, processes or imports the product as his/her business.”

Here, the term “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined according to social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the repetition and continuity of business affairs, whether business is conducted or not, and the purpose, scale, frequency, period, mode, etc. of the act, regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1985 Decided March 29, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449 Decided September 27, 2013, etc.). According to the records and images of the evidence No. 9-1, No. 2, and No. 10 of the evidence No. 9-2, and the court’s results of the financial transaction information inquiry against our banks, the Defendant posted a written introduction on the Internet as to the instant allocations created by him/her, and the comments on the contents of the product’s inquiry are many.