[1] The case holding that it is difficult to presume that a fire has been caused by a defect in the manufacture of a vehicle in light of the fact that, in a case where a fire with unknown causes occurred in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked in an underground parking lot, the defect level and contents of the vehicle are not specified, and the possibility that the vehicle might be inflammable out from the outside of the vehicle could not be ruled out

[2] Whether product liability is applicable in a case where damage occurs to the product itself due to a lack of product adequacy (negative)

[1] The case holding that it is difficult to presume that a fire has been caused by a defect in the manufacture of a vehicle in light of the fact that, in a case where a fire with unknown causes occurred in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked in an underground parking lot, the defect level and contents of the vehicle are not specified, and the possibility of being inflammable out from the outside of the vehicle cannot be ruled out

[2] Product liability is a liability for damages to a manufacturer, etc. in the event of damage to life, body, or property other than the product itself due to a defect that has a lack of safety ordinarily expected to be a product. Damage incurred to the product itself due to a lack of product suitability is not subject to product liability, and thus, it shall be claimed as a liability for warranty.

[1] Articles 580 and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 580 and 750 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da18139 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 224) Supreme Court Decision 97Da26593 delivered on February 5, 199 (Gong199Sang, 434)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Both automobiles Co., Ltd. (Law Firm National Comprehensive Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Lee-gn et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na12265 delivered on June 16, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that there was an abnormal fire fighting device that occurred between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on April 18, 192 and the non-party 1 on the condition that the non-party 2 had no specific fire fighting equipment and the non-party 1 had no specific fire fighting equipment, and that the non-party 2 had no specific fire fighting equipment on the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 had no fire fighting equipment on the non-party 1 on the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 9 date, and that the non-party 3 had no fire fighting equipment on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 9 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 9 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the same day.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the fire in this case occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle in this case, and therefore, the defendant, as the manufacturer, has the obligation to compensate for damages caused by the said vehicle being discharged, for the following reasons.

(5) Even according to the factual basis determined by the lower court, it is difficult to ascertain that the instant vehicle was destroyed by a fire that occurred on the front and rear side of the instant vehicle, and that there was a defect in the said vehicle because it was not revealed that the said fire occurred on any of the front parts of the instant vehicle. In addition, according to the records, it is difficult to see the fact that the vehicle’s horn was destroyed on the front and rear side of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant fire and the police’s investigation, and that there was no possibility of a fire that the vehicle’s horn was destroyed on the front and rear side of the instant vehicle. However, it is difficult to see where the vehicle’s inner diameter was destroyed due to the lack of appraisal as well as the cause of the fire, and that there was no possibility that the vehicle’s explosion was destroyed by an indoor electric current of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

In addition, product liability is also the liability to impose product damage on a manufacturer, etc. in the event of a defect in life, body, or product due to the lack of safety normally expected of the product, and the damage incurred to the product itself due to the lack of product adequacy is not subject to product liability (Supreme Court Decision 97Da26593 delivered on February 5, 199). Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the fire in this case occurred due to the defect in the electrical ship, etc., and the defect in the product liability and the defect in the product liability are different terms depending on different areas of liability, and even if the substance is the same, the Plaintiff, who is the seller, must seek only the damage caused by the defect in the vehicle itself, shall seek damages as the warranty liability against the Defendant, who is the seller).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the manufacturing of the vehicle of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)