[1] Whether product liability is recognized in a case where television was explosiond under normal reception of television (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where an explosion occurred due to a defect of a product and the occurrence of the accident is damaged by a fire, whether the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence applies (negative)

[3] The meaning of the life period set by a television manufacturing company, and whether product liability is established for an explosion accident at the time of somewhat passing (affirmative)

[1] Although the process of the leakage of the electronic gun which caused the explosion of television is not clearly revealed, inasmuch as the television was explosiond while receiving it normally, barring special circumstances, the television is deemed to have a defect in the product because of lack of reasonable safety required by social norms. This defect is presumed to have already existed in the stage of manufacturing and distributing the television. The manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing the product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of modern technological level and economic feasibility in terms of its structure, quality, and performance. In the event of damage to consumers due to the defect or defect, the manufacturer is liable to compensate for damage caused by the tort.

[2] The Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by an explosion caused by a defect of a product does not apply to cases where damage is caused by the explosion.

[3] The fact at the time of the manufacture of television can be established five years from the date of the purchase of the television. However, the above life means the minimum period for which the television in this case can function normally according to its original purpose. It is difficult to view that the period for exercising the right to claim damages due to the defect of the television in this case or the duration of the manufacturer's obligation to compensate for damages. Furthermore, even after the expiration of the life set by the manufacturer, the television widely distributed to the general public is deemed to be a dangerous object that may cause harm to the consumer's body or property by social norms. Thus, even after the expiration of the life set by the manufacturer, the television manufacturer bears a high duty of care to ensure safety in the design and manufacture process so as not to cause damage to the consumer due to the dangerous nature of the product even after the expiration of the life set by the manufacturer. Thus, even if the television is in excess of one year from its normal use, it does not interfere with the recognition of the defect in the manufacture.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 750 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Code

[1]

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

/ [2]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Nammun General Law Office, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Gahap21318 delivered on April 11, 1997

1. The part of the lower judgment regarding the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the following amount shall be revoked:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 56,531,262 won and 40,000,000 won from July 24, 1996; 16,531,262 won per annum from August 16, 1996 to February 20, 198; and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be five equal parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 68,406,162 won and 40,000,000 won from July 24, 1996; 26,531,262 won from August 16, 1996; 1,874,90 won from September 6, 1996 to the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case; and 5 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff which falls under the following shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 56,531,262 won and 40,000,000 won from July 24, 1996; 16,531,262 won from August 16, 1996 to the delivery date of the copy of each of the complaint of this case; 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date; and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of the delivery of the copy of each of the complaint of this case.

1. Scope of judgment of party members;

Since the plaintiff sought payment of the money as stated in the purport of the appeal in the original judgment against the plaintiff, and appeal was filed only with regard to the part as stated in the purport of the appeal against the plaintiff, it shall be determined as a party member only as to the above part of the appeal.

2. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-2, evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (the evidence No. 7 shall apply to evidence No. 12-12), evidence Nos. 12-1 through 8, 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 13, and part of evidence Nos. 8 (the evidence No. 12-9, the same shall apply to evidence No. 12-9), the witness stand for the lower court, and the whole purport of the pleadings in the testimony of a literature state, and some of the evidence No. 9 are contrary thereto are not trust and there is no counter-proof.

A. On October 13, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a long-term comprehensive insurance contract between the non-party Kim Yong-ok and the 2nd floor of the Busan Young-gu Gabro, Busan, which was owned by the above Kim Young-gu, with the content that the Plaintiff would compensate for damages caused by fire, theft, explosion, etc. on the second floor of the above 67-7-7 ground reinforced concrete slive roof (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Plaintiff agreed on Oct. 13, 1994 to Oct. 13, 204, the insurance amount was KRW 100,000,000, and the insurance period was paid once by the above Kim Young-ok.

B. At around 12:00 on July 3, 1996, Non-party Kim Jong-hee, a parent of the above Kim Jong-hee, viewed the 16-person video broadcast produced by the defendant company at the second floor inside the building of this case (B.T. television for concurrent use of B.T. and eggs; hereinafter the same shall apply). On the back side of the television broadcast of this case, Non-party Kim Jong-hee, a relative of the above Kim Jong-hee, was extracted from an explosion that makes it difficult to make a fire along with an explosion that makes it possible for him to move to a string, and then the second floor inside the building of this case and the materials of its inside the building of this case were moved to a string.

C. The above accident is presumed to have occurred during explosion due to leakage, and it was not discovered as to the reasons why the leakage occurred. The above accident is presumed to have occurred within the television water pipe of this case (one name, Brazil) and the electronic total part suffering from high voltages.

D. The television of this case is manufactured between the end of 1988 and the beginning of 1990 by the Defendant Company (the model name SV-1600), and the above Kim-ok purchased it six (6) years prior to the occurrence of the fire and used it until the time of the accident, and there was no repair until the time, or any alteration to the internal structure.

E. The Plaintiff paid 56,531,262 won to the above Kim-ok with the total sum of KRW 40,000,000 on July 24, 1996, and KRW 16,531,262 on August 16, 196, with the insurance contract with the above Kim-ok in accordance with the insurance contract with his Dong.

3. Judgment of party members

A. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, since the television of this case explosions in the normal reception of the television of this case, unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that there was a defect in the product because the nature of the product at the time of use is "unjustifiablely dangerous" due to lack of reasonable safety required by social norms. This defect is presumed that the defendant had already existed in the stage of manufacturing and distributing the television of this case. The manufacturer who manufactures and sells false products is liable to manufacture products with safety and durability within the expected range in light of modern technological level and economic feasibility in light of the structure, quality, and quality of the product. Thus, the manufacturer is liable to compensate for damages caused by tort in the event of damages to the consumer due to the defect or defect in safety and durability (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1389 decided Nov. 24, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 9Da1389 decided Feb. 13, 19, 199).

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that unless there is any assertion or proof by the plaintiff that there is gross negligence on the part of the defendant with respect to the explosion of the television of this case, the defendant is not liable for the damages under the Act on the Actual Liability for Fireation, but it is reasonable to view that the Act on the Liability for Fireization does not apply to the case where the damage was caused due to an explosion due to a defect of the product as in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da16919 delivered on June 25, 196, 96). Therefore, the defendant's argument based on the contrary opinion is without merit.

In addition, according to the fire appraisal result of the accident of this case, since it is difficult for the manufacturer to enter the above high voltage part, which is the cause of producing the television of this case, into a high voltage part, or from the outside spin, spin, spin, or water. In light of the fact that the above spinator purchased the television of this case and did not repair it once until the accident of this case, the accident of this case is left alone to spin the high voltage part of the television of this case, so it is difficult for the manufacturer to conclude that the above spinspins, spins, water, etc. were generated by the spinspheric use, and it is difficult for the manufacturer to enter the above spinspheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spheric spherspheric sphericspheric spherspherspherics.

In other words, the defendant asserts that the above Kimok's life can be five years from the purchase date of the television of this case, and since the accident occurred after five years from the purchase date of the television of this case, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages due to the passage of the liability period. According to the statement of No. 12 of the above adopted evidence No. 11 and witness testimony of the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant set the life at five years from the purchase date of the television of this case. However, the above life can not be deemed to mean the minimum period for which the television of this case can function normally in accordance with its original purpose, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant set the time period for exercising the right to claim damages due to the defect of the television of this case or the duration of the defendant's liability for damages. Furthermore, even if the television which is a widely distributed representative television product of this case is somewhat long, it cannot be viewed that there is a high possibility for consumers to use the television product of this case to the extent that it does not harm the safety of the manufacturer and its property.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 56,531,262 won and the amount of 40,000,000 won from July 24, 1996, the payment date of 16,531,262 won and the amount of 16,532 won from August 16, 196, the payment date of 1996 to February 20, 1998, the decision of the court below that it is reasonable for each defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation of this case from August 16, 1996 to February 20, 1998, the amount of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the full payment date. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and it is dismissed as to the remaining portion of the plaintiff's appeal 9, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's remaining 960%.

February 20, 1998

Judges Park Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)