1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 16, 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that he/she drinked the instant processed product (the distribution term was August 18, 2017; hereinafter “instant product”) manufactured by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and funged the instant product.

The plaintiff knew this fact to the non-party company following the day.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff was treated as a hospital until September 21, 2017 by causing symptoms of food poisoning, such as the outbreak of spawn face and spawn on top of spawn.

Detailed medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff are as shown in the attached Form.

C. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract for product liability insurance with the victim to compensate for personal injury if the personal injury occurred due to products manufactured by the Nonparty Company and the Nonparty Company.

(Insurance Period of July 3, 2017, KRW 100,00,00 for each person, and KRW 300,000 for the Non-Party Company’s own shares) / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 12, 19, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the Defendant’s product liability recognition, it is presumed that the Plaintiff’s food poisoning symptoms after eating the instant product was caused by the defect of the instant product.

Therefore, the Defendant is an insurer of the non-party company that made the instant product, and is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for all damages incurred therefrom pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Act.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that this case's product was presumed to have been stored in the upper temperature for a long time after opening of the product, and that this case's product was not generated in the manufacturing process.

However, in full view of the evidence mentioned above, mycoi in the product of this case was previously opened prior to opening, and there is no evidence to prove the defendant's assertion that mycoi occurred after opening the product of this case.

The defendant's objection.