(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.9.9.선고 2015나1723 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43,940,270 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed (the defendant's petition of appeal shall revoke the judgment of the court of first instance and state that the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, but the judgment of the court of first instance shall have accepted only part of the plaintiff's claim

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) A primary accident;

1) Around December 2012, the Plaintiff, a company established for the purpose of electrical construction business, entered into a construction contract with the purport of constructing electric facilities to a factory located in the new-Yanan-gun Seoul Metropolitan Government 132-9 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant factory”).

2) The Plaintiff was supplied with the water distribution team equipment and subdivision necessary for the above construction from one electricity company (hereinafter referred to as "one electricity"). The above water distribution team equipment and distribution unit were manufactured and supplied by the Defendant through the same electricity company (hereinafter referred to as "first voltage unit").

3) On December 28, 2012, the first voltage was installed in the electricity room of the first floor (hereinafter referred to as the “electric room of this case”) upon arrival of the aforementioned factory in packaging, and the New Anancheon National Electrical Safety Corporation issued a certificate of pre-use inspection with respect to electric facilities of the instant plant containing the first voltage period from the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation. However, on February 22, 2013, the New Anean National Electrical Safety Corporation, in the presence of its employees, issued a certificate of pre-use inspection with respect to electric facilities of the instant plant including the first voltage period (hereinafter referred to as the “first accident”).

4) On March 7, 2013, the Defendant sent to the above factory A a letter to the Plaintiff that employee A would have installed a new voltage in the above factory by March 7, 2013, and accordingly, on March 7, 2013, the Defendant newly installed a change voltage instrument that he/she manufactured in the above factory (hereinafter referred to as "the second change voltage instrument"; hereinafter referred to as "each change pressure instrument in the first change pressure instrument and the second change pressure instrument").

(b) A secondary accident;

1) However, on March 25, 2013, the 2nd voltage was explosiond during the operation around 11:30 on March 25, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd accident"), and the equipment such as the exhaust gas supply system of the instant plant was destroyed due to the first accident and the second accident.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant sent the employees B to the above factory following the date, after examining the causes of explosion and following the meetings of the persons concerned with future countermeasures, and prepared a letter to the effect that: (a) the second voltager explosion was caused by the Defendant’s manufacture negligence; and (b) the Defendant would take into account the free supply of the changed voltager to the New Anancheon, Inc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 11, 22, 28, 37, 38, and 39, witness C of the first instance trial and witness of D and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

Each of the accidents of this case occurred due to the manufacturing defect of each of the transformers of this case manufactured by the defendant, and the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 43,940,270 as a result of the replacement of the transformers to the Yacheon-do as a new product due to each of the accidents of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as a manufacturer of each of the different voltages of this case.

B. Defendant

Each of the accidents of this case occurred due to the error in the installation of each of the different transformers of this case and the fault in the management of the electric room of this case, which is the place of installation of each of the different voltages of this case, and the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground of the defect in each of the different voltages of this case is without merit.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Relevant legal principles

Product liability is a manufacturer, etc. liable for damages caused by a defect that lacks ordinarily expected safety of a product (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da35525, Jul. 28, 2000). If the manufacturer proves that the accident occurred in the area under exclusive control of the manufacturer in the event of an accident in which the product was normally used, and that the accident does not normally occur without the manufacturer’s negligence, the manufacturer’s failure to prove that the accident occurred due to any other cause than the defect, unless the accident is proven in the manufacturer’s side that the defect occurred due to the defect, it would be presumed that the defect exists and that the accident occurred due to the defect is presumed to exist and that the burden of proof is more than the damage compensation system that provides the fair and reasonable burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16771, Mar. 12, 2004).

B. In the instant case

In light of the aforementioned facts and evidence, the accident of this case occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the defendant who is not involved in the plaintiff or the non-party in the non-party in this case, unless the defendant, who is the manufacturer of each of the different pressure devices of this case, proves that each of the different pressure devices of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of lack of safety ordinarily expected due to any other cause, and it is presumed that each of the different pressure devices of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of lack of safety ordinarily expected due to any other cause not to be the product defect, and that the accident of this case of this case was caused by the defect of this defect of this case of this case of this case.

① On December 28, 2012, in the case of 1st voltagers, the electric room of the instant plant was not operated after being installed in the electric room of the instant plant. On February 22, 2013, the test was explosiond during the test operation.

② In the case of the second voltage, 20 days have not yet passed since the employee was present and was installed under the lead of the Defendant’s defense company, and thus explosiond again.

③ Since the transformation of the manufacturing of the modern Heavy Industries, which was installed in the instant plant after the instant accident, is installed at the same place as the transformation of each of the instant changeers and the said modern Heavy Industries, it is difficult to see that each of the instant changeers was explosiond due to the environment of the place where the instant changeers are installed.

④ The primary accident occurred while the test was under operation, and considering the volume of electric power used at the instant factory after the occurrence of the secondary accident, it is not deemed that the instant plant used excessively electric power even around the time when the secondary accident occurred.

⑤ In the instant electric room where each of the instant transformers was installed, the new electric control over access by others than related persons was strictly controlled, the electric safety supervisor was employed to manage the said electric room, and the electric safety supervisor was installed to faithfully perform the management obligation for the said electric room, such as installation of air conditioners and facilities to remove moistures, such as air conditioners.

6) As for the explosion of the transformers, the impact of transport installation, the electric power system of the voltages before and after the voltages, accumulation of land, and negligence in the process of producing the transformers other than the long-term excess load in use. Considering that each of the instant transformers explosions within a very short period after manufacture and operation, it is difficult to view that other explosion causes were involved in addition to negligence in the process of producing the transformers.

7) After the second accident, the Defendant prepared a letter (Evidence No. 5 and 8 of the A) stating that he/she would provide a new voltage device to the Yacheon-do, respectively. However, the Defendant may be deemed to have discovered that the occurrence of the instant accident was due to the negligence in the manufacture of each of the different voltage devices of this case.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating for property damage suffered by the plaintiff due to each accident of this case as a manufacturer of each changer of this case.

4. Limitation on liability for damages.

However, the Plaintiff, as an electrical construction company, has the duty to verify whether each of the instant transformation devices, the core components of the instant plant, has the performance or safety ordinarily expected in installing the electric facilities in the instant plant, and the Plaintiff would have been able to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident if the Plaintiff fully performed his/her duty, and other basic principles of the damages system, such as the fair burden of damages, shall be limited to 80% of the Defendant’s liability ratio.

5. Scope of liability for damages

A. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as indicated in the evidence column as follows, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 42,140,270 in total as indicated in the table below in the process of establishing a new voltage at the factory of this case after the second accident can be acknowledged.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The plaintiff alleged that he paid KRW 1,800,000 to personnel expenses, but there is no evidence to prove the above assertion.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 3,710,000 won (the amount less than 42,140,270 won X Defendant’s liability ratio of X Defendant, 80,000 won, and less than 10,000 won) and damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 25, 2013 (the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case) to the date of the second accident until January 23, 2015 (the day of the first instance judgment) and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.