beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 14, 2009 to October 11, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person who graduated from a master, junior college, visual design department in 195, and works as an artist, an artist, and a picture artist. The Defendant is a juristic person with the purpose of manufacturing and selling electrical machinery and appliances.
B. Around December 14, 2009, around 12:07, a household, such as a pipe, pipe, 65m2, and a laund, and a laundry, and a 27m27m2, which were located within the said laund, of the Plaintiff’s vinyl C (hereinafter “the instant vinyl house”) located within the Plaintiff’s father C, located in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the fire occurred, and the household, such as a 65m2, and a laundry and a cooling
(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.
The Defendant manufactured air conditioners inside the instant greenhouse (hereinafter “instant greenhouse gas conditioners”) and sold them to C. On May 13, 2010, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the fire site after the occurrence of the instant fire, and paid KRW 10,000,000 to C as compensation for damage caused by fire.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) The fire of this case occurred due to the problem of the excessive load protective device of the air conditioners of this case. Since the plaintiff's works in the greenhouse of this case were entirely destroyed due to the fire of this case, the defendant manufacturing and selling the air conditioners is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the plaintiff's works caused by the loss in accordance with the Product Liability Act or the legal principles of tort under the Civil Act.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion was made and sold in around 1998, which was before the enforcement of the Product Liability Act, and the Defendant is not liable under the Product Liability Act, and the instant fire cannot be deemed to have occurred due to the air conditioners, and thus, is not liable for tort under the Civil Act.
B. First of all, whether the Product Liability Act is established or not.