1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff A leased from Plaintiff B a distribution farm located in Ansan-si C (hereinafter “instant farm”), a distribution storage warehouse, and an agricultural machine.

B. On June 2012, Plaintiff A purchased a string machine with the temperature control equipment, which was manufactured by the scam rink Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scam rink”) (hereinafter “Scam rink”).

C. At around 20:00 on August 31, 2013, Plaintiff A put a drilling into the strawing season from a warehouse for agricultural machinery owned by oneself located on the instant farm, and operated after setting the temperature as 5°C at around 20:0.

On September 1, 2013, at around 08:30 on September 1, 2013, a fire (hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”) occurred in the above agricultural machinery warehouse, and the instant fire was expanded from the above agricultural machinery warehouse to the above exhaustr storage.

E. As the instant fire, Plaintiff A suffered damages from machinery, such as agricultural machinery storage, strawer, strawer, trawer, and trawer, and fertilizers 80 circulations, and Plaintiff B suffered damages from re-construction of a distribution storage warehouse leased to Plaintiff A.

F. The instant fire occurred at the temperature control season in the above high-sacrific tank.

G. Around June 5, 2013, the tax rate case concluded a contract with the Defendant for product liability insurance with respect to the temperature control equipment, etc. manufactured by the tax rater from June 1, 2013 to June 1, 2014, by setting the period of deduction from June 1, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 10 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. The fire of this case occurred at the studs of the studs located in the studs warehouse of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect of the temperature control apparatus manufactured and sold by the studs, i.e., the studs of the temperature control apparatus, i.e. the studs of the temperature control apparatus.

The defendant is against the above temperature controler.