(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2015.1.23.선고 2013가단5471 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,710,000 won with 5% interest per annum from January 5, 2013 to January 23, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff bears 20% of the costs of lawsuit, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43,940,270 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the date of service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to November 18, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of service of a duplicate of the petition of this case.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Basic facts;

(i)the primary explosion of a transformer;

On December 2012, the Plaintiff, as an electrical construction company, performed the construction of electric facilities in the new construction site located in the Hanan-gun, the Hanan-gun, the Hanan-gun, the Hanan-gun, the Hanan-gun, the operation of the New Airport (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”), which was supplied from the electricity company to the water distribution team equipment and the distribution of the water distribution team equipment and the distribution containing the changed voltages (standard 30 TR 302,50 KVA) of the Defendant’s manufacture (On the other hand, the electricity company was supplied with the above changed voltages through the same line of interests of the intermediary merchant.).

On December 28, 2012, the above transformationer arrived at the above factory and was installed in the first floor electric room. After that, on February 20, 2013, the non-party company issued a certificate of pre-use inspection with respect to the above electric facilities from the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation, and on February 22, 2013, an accident occurred during the test run in the presence of the above construction employees (hereinafter referred to as "first explosion").

On the following day, the defendant dispatched the employees A to the above factory, and prepared a letter (Evidence A5) stating that the defendant will put the defendant into custody and install without any conditions until March 7, 2013 under the burden of the re-establishment cost. Accordingly, on March 7, 2013, the defendant dispatched the employees of the manufacturing company to the above factory and installed a new transformer at the above factory.

(ii)the second explosion of a transformer;

However, at around 11:30 on March 25, 2013, the above voltage was re-exploded due to an unforeseen cause (hereinafter referred to as the "second explosion") and the equipment of the plant, such as exhaust gas stack, etc., were destroyed, and the manufacturing process of the non-party company was suspended.

Accordingly, the Defendant sent the staff B on the following day to the site, and the Party B prepared a letter (Evidence B8) to the effect that, in response to the demand of the Non-Party Company, the damage caused by the explosion of the above voltager would be discovered, and that, in addition, the compensation clause (2,50KA) would consider the measures to supply the Non-Party Company free of charge.

(3) Plaintiff’s compensation measures

Despite the above written statement, the defendant did not take an active measure other than the temporary voltage, the non-party company demanded the contractor to compensate the plaintiff for damages. The plaintiff bears the replacement of the transformeror with the products trusted by the non-party company for the non-party company, the additional installation of the preliminary voltager, and the cost of restoring the exhaust ventilation system for the non-party company. The disbursement details are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute; entries in Gap 1 through 8, 10 through 28, 31 and 45; and video (including partial defense numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); witness C, B, and D's testimonys

B. Grounds for liability

As seen above, it appears that Defendant 2 had an explosion over two occasions after installation; Defendant 30, 35, 41, 42, and 47 had an explosion; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 did not have an explosion of the same time; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 did not have an explosion of the same time; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 3 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 3 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 3 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 2 had an explosion of the same time as above; Defendant 3 had an explosion of the same time as above, and Defendant 1 had an explosion of the same time as that of this kind of explosion; Defendant 2 again had an explosion of the same time before its installation.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Act, the Defendant is liable to compensate for property damage suffered by the non-party company, the final consumer due to an explosion caused by the defect. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the non-party company, the final consumer due to the defect. In this case, the Defendant’s product liability and the Plaintiff’s product liability are in a non-party company, the same purpose of which is compensation for the damage of the non-party company. Among them, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the non-party company independently through payment in lieu of the attached Form, such as the Plaintiff’s use and payment in lieu of the payment in lieu of the attached Form, and the amount of the compensation is not particularly excessive (in light of the purpose of the payment in substitution and the details of the expenditure, it is not deemed that the amount of the compensation was not particularly excessive. Of them, the preliminary voltages, etc. already mentioned in consultation with the non-party company at the time of the second explosion. According to each of the evidence Nos. 33 and 34, the non-party company can be known against the Defendant.

Next, with respect to the Defendant’s burden, the explosion accident can not be deemed as the main cause of the defect of the Defendant’s manufacturing voltager, as seen earlier. However, in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, but the electricity, etc. also do not exclude the obligation to ensure the final safety of the goods to be supplied to the contracting party at the distribution and examination stage as an independent contracting entity, it is reasonable to set the Defendant’s share among the quasi-joint and several debtors jointly and severally liable to the Nonparty Company at 80%.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity KRW 33,710,00 (attached Form 42,140,270, 80%, less than KRW 10,000) and the damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from May 25, 2013 to January 23, 2015, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served, to the extent of the Defendant’s obligation.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.