209Na37830 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

Xxx -xxx xx)

Seoul Gangdong-gu 00 Dong-dong 00 Dog-dong Dog-gu

Law Firm Barun

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan

○ & & & & & & & & corporation

Seoul Seocho-gu 00 Dong-gu - Does

대표이사 싱ㅁ■■■■■

Attorney Kim Sung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan388929 Decided September 30, 2009

July 13, 2010

August 10, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is responsible for total costs of litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

주위적으로, 피고는 원고에게 메르세데스 벤츠 ♤ 자동차 ( 모델 : E220CDI, 2008년

e)one new vehicle is transferred to India.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant’s KRW 64,900,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s interest as from July 15, 2008

Until the delivery date of a copy of a complaint, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

shall pay the amount at the rate of interest.

2. Purport of appeal

Order Nos. 1, 2

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 2008. 7. 7. 피고로부터 메르세데스 벤츠 > ♤ 자동차 ( 모델 : E220CDI , 2008년식 ) 1대를 매매대금 64, 900, 000원에 매수하기로 하는 매매계약 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 매매계약 ' 이라고 한다 ) 을 체결하고, 2008. 7. 15. 그 매매대금을 모두 지급하였으며 , 2008. 7. 18. 그에 관한 차량등록 ( 차량번호 호, 이하 ' 이 사건 차량 ' 이라고 한다 ) 을 마쳤다 .

B. On July 26, 2008: (a) around 00, the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle at the underground parking lot located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 Dora, where the Plaintiff resides, and went to the entrance of the parking lot and made a right-hand transfer; (b) and (c) there was an accident that shocks the said Dora external wall beyond the front 00 Dora in front of the front 00 Dora of the front side by straighting about about 30 meters of the parking lot (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. The front cover and engine parts of the instant vehicle were destroyed due to the foregoing accident, and immediately after the accident, the Defendant towing and keeping the said vehicle, and the current status of the scene and the vicinity of the accident is as shown in the annexed on-site drawings.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, Eul’s evidence No. 2 (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while driving the instant vehicle normally, does not operate a bracking even though it was caused by the defects existing in the said vehicle, and rather, is accompanied by abnormal rush and prompt wind, sought to transfer the instant vehicle of the same model and type with the instant vehicle, and subsequently sought the delivery of the instant vehicle around the Defendant on the ground that the instant accident occurred due to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s preliminary defect cannot achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract due to the said defect, and sought the payment of the purchase price and damages for delay paid by the Plaintiff to its original state.

3. Determination

A. Whether defects exist in the instant vehicle

In light of the following circumstances, even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was examined, it is insufficient to view that there was a defect in the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in light of the above all of the evidence, the above evidence, as stated in No. 1, No. 2, and No. 6, and the result of the court’s inspection, it is reasonable to confirm that the accident in this case occurred due to the failure of driving manipulation, such as the Plaintiff’s misunderstanding the speed pedal as balc bal pedal.

(1) Although the Plaintiff did not have a duty to report and maintain the safety of the vehicle, the Plaintiff did not have a critical role in determining the volume of air and fuel in the engine with the involvement of the Plaintiff’s e-mail equipment at the time of the instant accident. However, the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was no error due to external habitation or interference with other internal equipment, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was no other special circumstance regarding the vehicle’s defect as a result of the instant accident’s diagnosis of the vehicle at least six days after the date of the instant accident, and that the vehicle’s e-mail system was installed in its own diagnosis system, and that there was no additional proof that there was no defect in the vehicle’s e-mail equipment at the time of the instant accident. However, even if the vehicle’s e-mail system was discovered, the Plaintiff’s diagnostic code was stored in the e-mail, as well as the vehicle’s e-mail equipment’s e-mail equipment that could not be found.

It seems extremely rare in that the parking or departure process takes place without any occurrence, and it takes place in the course of transition.

( 6 ) 원고는 설령 원고의 운전미숙으로 이 사건 사고가 발생하였다고 하더라도, 브레이크 페달과 엔진 페달의 간격을 넓히고 높낮이를 조절하여 사고를 미연에 방지하여야 함에도 그 설계상의 결함으로 이 사건 사고가 발생하였다고 주장하나, 이 사건 차량의 가속 페달과 브레이크페달의 표면적 및 높낮이 차이가 상당한 것으로 보이는 점, 페달 간격이 지나치게 넓을 경우 오히려 응급상황 대처에 어렵다는 점에 비추어 보면, 원고의 페달 설계 · 제작상의 결함 주장 역시 이유 없다 . ( 7 ) 원고는 이 사건 사고 당시 최종 충격 지점인 건물 외벽 30m 전방에서부터 ( 벽면에 ' 경비구역 ' ♤☆가 있다 ) 이 사건 차량의 브레이크를 밟았는데 오히려 브레이크가 전혀 듣지 않고 전방으로 돌진하여 화단을 타고 넘어 건물 외벽을 충격하였다고 주장하나, 이 사건 사고 당시 사고지점 일부를 비추는 CCTV 영상에는 원고가 지하주차장을 빠져나와 우회전을 한 후 브레이크를 밟았다고 주장하는 ' 경비구역 ' ♤☆지점을 통과하기까지 정상적으로 주행하는 모습을 엿볼 수 있을 뿐 원고 주장과 달리 이 사건 차량의 후미 브레이크 등이 켜있지 않아, 브레이크 페달을 밟았다는 원고의 주장은 믿을 수 없다 ( 더구나 이 사건 차량에는 가속페달과 브레이크 페달을 동시에 밟았을 경우 토크가 줄어들면서 브레이크로 차를 멈출 수 있도록 하는 급발진 방지 장치가 장착되어 있다 ) .

( 8 ) 또한 원고는 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 차량이 비정상적인 굉음을 내었다고 주장하면서, 당시 엄청난 자동차 엔진 굉음이 들렸고 급히 현장을 확인하여 다친 사람이 있는지 확인하였다는 취지의 ♥▦▦▦의 진술서를 제출하고 있으나, 그것만으로는 위 굉음을 원고 주장과 같은 통제 불능의 과다한 엔진 공회전에 기인한 소음으로 단정할 수는 없는 것이고, 또한 당시 CCTV영상을 보더라도 사고 당시 일부 행인들이 간간이 지나가는 모습을 볼 수 있으나, 위 진술서 취지와 같은 소란스러운 급박함을 느낄 수있을만한 정황은 엿볼 수 없다 .

( 9 ) 이 사건 사고는 원고가 이 사건 차량의 매수대금을 완납 ( 원고는 매수대금을 완납한 2008. 7. 15. 이 사건 차량을 인도♠○○○ 진술하고 있다 ) 한지 11일이 경과한 2008. 7. 26. 발생하였는데, 위와 같이 원고가 이 사건 차량을 인도받은 지 얼마 되지 않아 이 사건 사고가 발생한 점에다 사고 당시 원고의 연령 ( 만 70세 ) 까지 감안하여 보면, 원고의 운전미숙으로 인하여 사고가 발생하였을 개연성도 없지 않아 보인다 .

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of relaxing the burden of proof

원고는, 고도의 기술이 집약되어 대량으로 생산되는 제품인 D♤차의 하자 등으로 인한 손해를 이유로 매수인에게 하자담보책임을 추궁하는 경우에도 그 정보나 지식의 편재성은 제조물책임의 경우의 그것과 다를 바가 없음을 이유로, 제조물책임에 있어서 입증책임 완화의 법리가 하자담보책임의 경우에도 유추 적용되어야 한다는 취지로 주장한다 .

However, relaxing the burden of proof in product liability is generally known only by a manufacturer who is an expert in the product manufacturing process, and it is extremely difficult for a consumer to prove the causal relationship between the defect and the damage. Even if there is a defect or defect in the product, a seller who is not a manufacturer does not have knowledge and ability necessary to anticipate or remove the defect or damage caused by the defect due to the lack of control over the defect. Thus, the seller's status, a seller's relationship with the manufacturer, a possibility of sharing information about the product, a seller's ability to repair the defect, etc. can not be presumed to be the same as the manufacturer in light of the principle of mitigation of the burden of proof in product liability in the case of defect liability liability. Thus, it cannot be presumed that there is no special circumstance in the record that the defendant could not take account of the above special circumstances, and even if the defendant is a domestic exclusive seller of the vehicle in this case, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the defect or the accident in this case can not be viewed as having been ordinarily used in accordance with the legal reasoning of the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims on the premise of defects in the vehicle of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety without any further review of the remaining points. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked and all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court;

Judges Lee Jae-tae

Judges Kim Jong-chul