1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A and B ADD 8 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is a domestic official sear that is in charge of importing, selling, and repairing AD vehicle, and is a company that sells the instant vehicle to Nonparty A, and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor is the manufacturer of the instant vehicle.

B. At around 21:30 on May 23, 2013, A driven the instant vehicle and tried to extinguish the instant vehicle after stopping the vehicle on the right side because at least 3-4 warnings, etc. were cut down from the front side of the vehicle, while driving the instant vehicle in the vicinity of the Yannamsan Island to return to his own house located in Daejeon. However, the engine studs and sprinks were melted or burned on the back side of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 133,293,720 to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., the pledgee of the instant vehicle due to the instant fire, in July 24, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is selectively responsible for the following tort liability and contractual nonperformance liability.

First of all, it is sufficient to prove that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer in the event of the occurrence of the accident in the normal use of the product, and that the accident does not occur in the ordinary course without any negligence of any person. The fire in this case occurred in the engine part under the manufacturer's exclusive control while the vehicle in this case is normally in driving, and so the defendant does not prove that the fire in this case occurred in other causes, the product liability law exists on the vehicle in this case, and therefore, the product liability law exists on the vehicle in this case.