All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants except for Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on the part of occupational and practical ideas

A. As to the assertion on the grounds of appeal regarding the possibility of predictability, the lower court, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, found that, in cases where the Defendants manufacture and sell DNA cleaning agents or AV damping agents (hereinafter referred to as “each of the said cases”) with the ingredients and content of sterilizations for which the safety of the human body was not ensured without proper instructions or warnings, they could have sufficiently predicted that the Defendants could cause toxic reactions within the body and inflict bodily harm on the users of each of the of the instant cases by causing toxicic agents with toxic reactions in the body and causing serious death.

In the judgment of the court, the source materials of the stoves did not have been designated as poisonous substances under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Toxic Chemicals Control Act, which were in force at the time of manufacture and sale of each of the stoves of this case, or have been sold and used for a considerable period

The Defendants did not accept the Defendants’ allegation of the reasons for appeal to the effect that it is not possible to expect in light of the fact that the hazards of the N Products were not known.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possibility of predictability as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. As to the allegation of the grounds of appeal related to the breach of duty of care, the lower court held that Defendant A, B, and C (hereinafter “D Defendants”).