[2] Allocation of burden of proof in product liability

[3] The case holding that in case where the television was explosiond under normal use conditions when its life exceeds 1 year, and the life of the television was not the period for exercising the right to claim damages due to defects in the television or the duration for the manufacturer's obligation to compensate for damages, but the manufacturer has the duty of care to ensure the safety of the product even after the expiration of the life of the manufacturer

[2] In order to impose liability for damages on a manufacturer or seller of goods, the existence of a defect, the causal relationship between the occurrence of the damage and the occurrence of the damage is inevitable. However, in the case of goods manufactured in large quantities due to the concentration of high technology, the process of production can only be easily known to consumers if it is large, and only the manufacturer can be known if it is large, and the repair is also entrusted to the manufacturer or the repairer entrusted by him/her. Thus, it is obvious that the existence of any defect, and further, whether the defect occurred or not damage is ordinarily caused by the defect is ordinarily not an expert but an ordinary manufacturer. Thus, it is extremely extremely extremely difficult for the consumer to prove a scientific and technical complete causal relationship between the defect and the occurrence of the defect. Thus, in the case of goods manufactured in a normal state of television reception, it is not reasonable for the consumer to prove that the accident occurred in the area of exclusive control of the manufacturer and to have been caused by the defect, unless it is proven that the accident is caused by the accident is beyond the ordinary level of proof of the defect.

[3] The case holding that the manufacturer's duty of care to ensure the safety of the product is recognized even after the expiration of the life period, in case where the television was explosiond under normal use conditions when the life exceeds one year, and the life of the manufacturer is not the period for exercising the right to claim damages due to defects in the television or the duration of the manufacturer's obligation to compensate for damages due to defects in the television.

With respect to the first and second points

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a long-term comprehensive insurance contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 on October 13, 1994; the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on the 6th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff had no liability to compensate for the losses caused by fire, theft, explosion, etc. on the 2nd floor of Busan Young-gu ( Address omitted); the plaintiff agreed on October 13, 1994 to the extent of the insurance coverage amount; the non-party 1's insurance premium was paid once from the non-party 1; the non-party 2, the non-party 1's 6th of the above 9th of the 9th of the 196th of the 6th of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 2nd of the 19th of the disaster.

Manufacturers, etc. who manufacture and sell false goods are liable to manufacture and sell products with safety and durability within the scope expected in light of the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of their distribution, in terms of the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the products, and liability for damages arising from tort should be borne in cases where consumers suffer damage due to defects in safety and durability (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da18139, Nov. 24, 1992).

Therefore, it is natural that the existence of the above defect, the occurrence of damage, and the occurrence of damage should be premised on the existence of causation between the defect and the occurrence of the defect in large volume, in order to impose liability for damages on the manufacturer and seller of the product. However, in the case of a product manufactured in large quantity due to the concentration of high technology, the process of production is almost little possible for consumers to know if it is large, and only the manufacturer can know if it is large, and the repair is also entrusted to the manufacturer or the repairer entrusted by the manufacturer. Therefore, it is difficult for the consumer to prove the existence of any defect, and further whether it was caused by the defect as an ordinary person, not an expert, to prove the causal relationship between the defect of the product, the occurrence of the defect, and the occurrence of the damage.

Therefore, in the case where television is generated from a normal reception of television as in this case, if the consumer proves that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and if the accident is not ordinarily caused without any negligence, the manufacturer does not prove that the accident was caused by any other cause, not the defect of the product, the above product was defective at the stage of distribution, which is not a reasonable safety that is naturally expected to be equipped by social norms, and the burden of proof should be mitigated so that it can be presumed that the accident was caused by such defect and that the damage was caused by the fair and reasonable burden is more than the damage compensation system with the guiding principle.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect in the product and causation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The grounds of appeal disputing this point cannot be accepted in entirety.

With respect to the third and fourth points

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it seems that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the non-party 1's erroneous use (use by error) or negligence in management, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Further, the court below set the term of the television of this case five years from the date of product purchase, and the accident of this case occurred after the lapse of the life, but the above term of the television of this case seems to refer to the minimum period during which the consumer can normally perform its function according to its original purpose, and it cannot be deemed that the period for exercising the right to claim damages due to the defect or the duration of the defendant's obligation to compensate for damages. Further, even if the length of the household television which is a representative product widely distributed to the general public has expired today, it is deemed that it is a dangerous object that may harm the consumer's body or property, and therefore, the manufacturer of the television of this case bears no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to product liability as seen above, even if it does not affect the normal life of this case.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)