beta
(영문) 대법원 2018.10.25 2018다242420

손해배상(기)

Text

The judgment below

The part of the case against Defendant E is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant E

A. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The environmental business team of Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) added the amount of solution, such as sulfur, to be used for experiments to two air conditioners of this case, which are intended to use sea water or clean water, and used it until July 2012, and disposed of it through Defendant F and G Co., Ltd.

(2) The Plaintiffs purchased the instant heavy air cooling machine from Defendant G Co., Ltd., and attempted to use one of them by linking it to the high-speed air cooling machine, which is a food machine.

(3) However, the plaintiffs did not operate properly the connected cooling machine, and the plaintiffs suffered the accident of this case where, in the process of separating the cooling machine connected to the early high-speed air cooling machine to replace it to another cooling machine, they remain in the cooling machine, and the plaintiffs suffered damages such as pictures, etc. in the cooling machine.

B. According to the above facts, it is almost impossible for the general public to expect that the sulfur still remains in the cooling season using sulfur, unlike the original purpose, in the cooling season of this case where the sea water or clean water should be used. As such, the business operator who disposes of the cooling cooling machine using yellow acid using yellow acid, has a duty of care to inform a third party of the possibility of washing the sulfur remaining in the cooling season at a safe level, or of the possibility that sulfur residues remains in the cooling season.

Therefore, as long as Defendant E disposes of the cooling machine without notifying a third party that he could safely remove sulfur oxide or remain sulfur in the cooling machine of this case, the above Defendant’s tort liability can be recognized.

C. In addition, the plaintiffs purchased the cooling machine of this case and connected and separate the cooling machine to the high-speed air exhauster according to ordinary usage methods.