logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.02.26 2014다74605
손해배상(기)
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A manufacturer who manufactures and sells goods shall be liable to manufacture and sell the goods with safety and durability within the expected range in light of the level of technology, quality, performance, etc. at the time of distribution and economic feasibility, and shall be liable to compensate for any damage inflicted upon consumers due to any defect not in safety and durability;

Meanwhile, in a case where liability for damages is imposed on a manufacturer for reasons of defects in mass-produced products due to the concentration of high technology, the manufacturing process of the product is limited to a manufacturer who is an expert, and it is difficult for a consumer to prove scientifically and technically the causal relationship between the defect in the product and the occurrence of the defect because there is a unique feature that can not be seen as a general person. Thus, it is extremely difficult for the consumer to prove the defect in the product as well as the causal relationship between the defect in the product and the occurrence of the damage. In a case where an accident occurred under normal use of the product, if the consumer proves that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and that the accident does not occur ordinarily without any negligence, the manufacturer's failure to prove that the accident occurred due to other reasons than the defect in the product, unless the manufacturer proves that the accident occurred due to the defect in the product, and to estimate the occurrence of the accident caused by the defect, and to relieve the burden of proof so that the accident can be

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16771 delivered on March 12, 2004, etc.). 2. The court below held the adopted evidence.

arrow