2017 Ghana 5211644 Claims

A Stock Company

Law Firm Seyang, Attorney Shin-yang

Attorney Kim Gi-hun, Kim Jong-sik, and Yoon Jae-hun

B Stock Company

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

August 27, 2019

October 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 252,159,112 won with 5% interest per annum from August 30, 2017 to the service date of a copy of complaint; 15% interest per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019; and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the E-C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the following terms and conditions.

(1) Insured: C

(2) Insurance period: From June 2016, September 201 to June 9, 2017.

(3) Subject matter of insurance: Factory buildings located in Gwangju Mine-gu D (hereinafter referred to as "factory of this case").

(4) Amount of insurance coverage: 400 million won in each Edong (Fdong) and G Dong among the factories of this case.

B. The factory of this case is a place where an air conditioner is operated for 24 hours to produce air conditioner. C purchased 1.60,000 won through an air conditioner (H) 2 manufactured by the Defendant on July 5, 2016, and purchased 1.50,000 won of the damp (J) manufactured by the Defendant on August 9, 2016, and installed each of the above damp (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant damp”) at the factory of this case. A worker of C visited the Edong (Fdong; hereinafter referred to as “Edong”) at around 03:00 on April 30, 2017, and then removed from the wall of this case and then removed from the wall of this case due to damage to the E-dong (hereinafter referred to as “fire reduction”) and the fire reduction occurred on April 30, 2017.

C. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 252,159,112 in total, with insurance proceeds, to K Co., Ltd., which was delegated with the authority to claim insurance proceeds from the instant fire under the instant insurance contract, to K Co., Ltd., which was delegated with the authority to claim insurance proceeds from the instant fire, as insurance proceeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including various numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of each fact inquiry into Gwangju Metropolitan City Provincial Police Agency, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

Among the factories of this case, the fire of this case occurred from the electrical cause in the compressed Cable Co., Ltd., which had been installed within the Edong building, from among the manufacturing and sales habits. Under normal use, each of the above fire of this case had a defect that caused a fire. On the other hand, C purchased each of the above fire of this case and received a usage manual stating the risk of fire in the event of the use of it at the time of the purchase and installation of the above fire. There was a defect in the indication on each of the above fire of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for damages suffered by C, the insured due to the fire of this case, based on the Product Liability Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act and the Product Liability Act and the Civil Act and the contract of this case. The Plaintiff paid 252,159,112 won to K Co., Ltd., the insured under the insurance contract of this case with the above authority to claim insurance money from the date of the amendment of the Commercial Act to 251% of the insurance money of this case, 2515% of subrogation damages.

3. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and each of the above evidence, the fire in this case occurred in the manufacturing sector under the exclusive control of the defendant in the state of using damp habits normally, or cannot be concluded to have a defect in indication, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a tort in breach of his duty of care, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A. In a case where an accident occurred while a product was normally used, it is sufficient for a consumer to prove that the accident occurred in an area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer if the consumer is liable for damages to the manufacturer on the ground of the defect of the product, and that the accident does not occur in ordinary without the manufacturer’s negligence. In order to be exempted from liability on the manufacturer’s side, the accident must prove that the accident occurred due to reasons other than the defect of the product (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31361, Mar. 10, 206). In a case where a manufacturer claims damages from a manufacturer on the ground that the defect of mass production caused damage, such as lack of capacity, etc., caused by the defect of the product in large quantity, a general consumer is extremely difficult to prove the existence of any specific defect in the product, and whether the damage was caused by the defect in scientific and technical aspects. Therefore, it is reasonable for the consumer to prove that the damage was not attributable to the manufacturer’s liability for damages due to a defect in 20 or more than 80.

B. However, it is difficult to confluence as to which a total of three devices discovered in the field of Edong fire was seriously damaged due to the instant fire or Defendant’s side products. According to the written appraisal by the National Science Investigation and Research Institute, the exhaustr connecting cable among the remaining parts of Epics is equipped with the size of 32 x 0.12 x 3C on the premise of the possibility of error in measurement. The Defendant purchased by C is different from one another, in the case of blue and black cable, the size of the connecting cable in Epicing machines is 1.3 m2 m2 and in the case of red cable, 18AWG, namely, 0.823m, in the case of red connecting wires (the Plaintiff is able to have a measurement error as indicated in the written appraisal of legal safety, and if the specifications are below the above, the Defendant itself is presumed to have a defect in the process of designing, designing, and producing materials to support this).

C. The fire authorities (the Central Fire-Fighting Science Research Center) cannot determine the internal combustion of the damp machine, and considering that the electrical characteristics from the internal cable are not discovered, and that the PCB’s electric power source is not cut off, the possibility of electrical launch is low. The National Scientific Investigation Institute also determines that the type of fall from the compressed cable is distinct, but that there is no direct discussion as to whether the spreading is related. Meanwhile, the police authorities (the Gwangju Metropolitan City Police Agency) determine that the type of fall from the damp electric power line installed on the left side of the said damp machine was identified, the upper iron plate was turneded, and the upper iron plate was turneded, and the blocking period, which is presumed to be the "presumed" with the connecting power line, the power source production main power source, cannot observe the external features, but it cannot be presumed to be formed by the electrical cause from the compressed cable, but it cannot be presumed to be a specific cause.

(d) Electronic equipment, such as ordinary damps, are delivered together with a manual for use (this case’s equipment is composed of four moistures, and it seems that all of them would not be included in the manual for commercial and industrial purposes). The manual for use of each damp machine of this case includes: “Before using it, this manual is de facto read before using it, and shall be kept for smooth driving, and the following guidelines shall be complied with in order to prevent damages and injury to users or others. In disregarding the guidelines, erroneous driving is the cause of property damage and human life damage.” “I need to use products. The causes of excessive heat and fire in a narrow space.” “this product is manufactured for commercial and industrial purposes.” The factory of this case’s equipment has been installed in a limited space for manufacturing equipment, and it seems that there is no possibility that it would be no other person to use it in a limited space for manufacturing equipment at all times in order to prevent the manufacturing machine from being operated. It seems that it seems that there is a high possibility that it would always be no other person to use it in a limited space.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall not be accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-sik