[1] Requirements for establishing product liability

[2] Allocation of the burden of proof of product liability

[3] The case holding that a manufacturer who failed to prove that a fire was caused by another cause, not a product defect, shall be held liable for damages caused by the product defect

[4] The requirements for intervention by an independent party

[5] The requirements for participation in prevention of harm under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[6] Benefits of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation

[7] The case holding that it is unlawful for the intervenor to seek confirmation against the defendant as to the non-existence of the claim for reimbursement against the defendant following the defendant's performance of the damage liability for which its existence has not been confirmed against the plaintiff

[1] Manufacturers, etc. manufacturing and selling goods are liable to manufacture and sell products with safety and durability within the scope expected in light of their technical level and economic feasibility in light of their structure, quality, performance, etc. at the time of their distribution. In a case where any defect in safety and durability causes damage to consumers, they are liable to compensate for damages due to tort.

[2] In proving a defect of a product, if the consumer proves that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer due to the characteristics of the product liability and that such accident does not occur normally without any negligence, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred due to the defect of the product unless the manufacturer proves in the manufacturer that the accident occurred due to another cause, not the defect of the product.

[3] The case holding that in the case of a fire presumed to be caused by the electric joint line of the hot water code, if the manufacturer failed to prove that the fire was caused by another cause, not the three-dimensional defect of the hot water, the above product shall be held liable for damages caused by the fire, which was presumed to have been caused by the defect of the product, since the product's nature at the time of its use did not meet the reasonable safety required by social norms, and the manufacturer shall be held liable for damages caused by the defect of the product

[4] An independent party participating in a lawsuit intends to claim that all or part of the subject matter of lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that the subject matter of lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit is a party, and then settle in a lump sum without inconsistency between the two parties by a single judgment, the intervenor must make a separate claim that is incompatible with the principal claim against the plaintiff or the defendant in the lawsuit to be first participated, and the claim should be established by its own assertion, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit.

[5] In order to participate in an intervention in the prevention of corruption, it should be objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant in the principal lawsuit have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question, and it should be recognized that the intervenor's rights or legal status may be infringed as a result of the lawsuit.

[6] A lawsuit for confirmation shall be allowed only when it is an appropriate and effective method to resolve the present legal unstable situation between the parties, which is subject to the present rights or legal relations.

[7] The case holding that it is unlawful for the Intervenor to seek confirmation of the absence of all or part of the Intervenor's indemnity liability against the Defendant due to the obligor's performance of the above compensation liability, in principle, that the future legal relationship except conditional rights or time limit rights, is not subject to confirmation, since the Defendant's liability for damages against the Plaintiff was not finalized, and thus, the Intervenor's claim against the Defendant for confirmation of the non-existence of all or part of the Intervenor'

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 79 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Article 79 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [6] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da15934 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 785) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1671 Delivered on March 12, 200 (Gong2004Sang, 611) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da18139 Delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 202Da17393 Delivered on September 5, 2005 (Gong2003Ha, 20194, 205Da979798 delivered on June 27, 2005), Supreme Court Decision 209Da173979 Delivered on September 24, 2005 (Gong2003Ha-179, 2012), Supreme Court Decision 97Da40984 Delivered on June 27, 2097)

flive iron (Attorney Seo-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Nomba Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Kukdong Cable Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

may 24, 2005

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 52,135,837 won with 5% interest per annum from March 19, 2004 to June 21, 2005 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Ten minutes of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, the remainder is assessed against the defendant, and the part resulting from the intervention is assessed against the independent party intervenor.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Main elements;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 75,03,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of participation by the independent party;

The plaintiff and the defendant confirm that there is no obligation including the plaintiff and the defendant's damages liability of the independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") related to the three times of acceptance and sale of the plaintiff, which were manufactured by the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 10, and the results of the fact inquiry into the Daegu Western Chief of Staff, and the purport of the whole arguments.

A. A. On August 2001, the Plaintiff purchased one of the three automatic hot water (name BD-6100 of model name BD-6100) automatically produced by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “the three-round hot water of this case”), and installed and used apartment complexes located in the Dongcheon-dong, Daegu-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

B. However, around 15:20 on August 29, 2003, a fire occurred in the apartment of this case, and household rescue tools, furniture, electronic equipment, etc. of this case, which were located in the hot water time and the apartment of this case were destroyed by fire, or polluted by flames caused by fire, and damaged the interior wall of apartment, ceiling, etc. due to flames (hereinafter “the fire of this case”).

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect of the three-dimensional electric source code of this case, the defendant is the manufacturing company of the above three-dimensionals and must compensate for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to product liability or tort liability under the Product Liability Act.

B. As to the liability under the Product Liability Act

The Product Liability Act (Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Product Liability Act) applies to products first supplied by a manufacturer after July 1, 2002, the date of entry into force of the Product Liability Act (Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Product Liability Act), and the three times of hot water in this case was supplied in 2001. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit

C. Regarding tort liability

(1) A manufacturer, etc. who manufactures and sells a product is liable to manufacture and sell the product with safety and durability within the expected extent in light of its technical level and economic feasibility at the time of its distribution, in which the product was manufactured and sold, and the consumer is liable to compensate for damages caused by any defect in its safety and durability. In addition, if the manufacturer proves that the accident occurred in the area exclusively controlled by the manufacturer due to the characteristics of the product liability and proves that the accident occurred in the part of the manufacturer's exclusive control and that the accident does not occur normally without any negligence, the manufacturer should be presumed to have occurred due to the defect in the product unless the manufacturer proves that the accident occurred due to another cause, not the defect in the product (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da15934 delivered on February 25, 200).

(2) In the instant case, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the evidence as seen earlier.

(A) After several months have passed since the purchase and installation of the instant hot water time, the Plaintiff only requested the Defendant Company’s Service Center to repair the breakdown and used it without any particular breakdown until the instant fire occurred.

(B) In addition to the three times of hot water in the instant case, the Plaintiff kept electric dynamics, hedra, etc. in the instant apartment toilet and used them by linking them to the container buried on the wall surface of the said toilet. The said hot water time and electric dynamics were connected to all of the flats, and all of them were connected only when they are used.

(C) On the date of the occurrence of the instant fire, the Plaintiff appeared at work around 12:30, and the Plaintiff’s wife and the children who were at work were at work in the same place as the first day left in the same place, and the instant apartment was at work in the same place, and the fire fighters, upon receiving a report from the residents living in the same apartment, dispatched the said apartment, caused the fire.

(D) In the Southern Division of the National Scientific Investigation Agency, where the fire of this case was discovered at the scene of the fire of this case, the fire of this case was burned around the detailed installation section of the above hot water system in the apartment toilet of this case. Of the electric wires collected from the above toilets, the electric wires presumed to be the detailed installation code of the hot water system of this case (standard small or medium line 48/18.0.18. According to the product specifications of the hot water system of this case, the above specifications of the electric power source code of this case are 50/0.18. The above specifications of two different wires discovered at the above site are significant differences from the specifications of the hot water time code of this case to 24/18 and 30/18.18, and it is difficult to conclude that the above specifications of the two different wires were likely to cause damage to the electric power source of this case to the above 48/18/00,000 from the point of view that the electric power source of this case was installed at the bottom of this case.

(마) 이 사건 온수 세정기의 전원코드는 가운데 부분에 도체와 이를 둘러싼 절연체로 구성된 2가닥의 전선(절연전선)이 있고, 이 전선을 외부 충격으로부터 보호하기 위하여 겉에 입힌 절연피복으로 구성되어 있는데, 참가인 회사는 2000. 1. 26.경부터 2001. 1. 15.경까지 위 회사가 제조한 전선(VCTFK 1.25㎟ X 2C, 이하 '이 사건 전선'이라고 한다) 8,000m를 참가인 회사의 계열사인 소외 극동산전 주식회사를 통하여 소외 주식회사 에스아이에스(이하 '에스아이에스'라고 한다)에 판매하였고, 에스아이에스는 이를 소외 동일전선 주식회사에 공급하여 절연피복을 입힌 다음 다시 공급받아 위 전선을 약 2m 정도의 길이로 절단하여 그 양 끝 부분의 절연피복을 벗겨내고 벗겨진 구리선을 플러그의 도체에 해당하는 구리조각에 압착 연결하고, PVC 사출기를 이용하여 플러그의 도체에 해당하는 구리 조각 및 코드 부분 전체를 매끈한 절연체로 성형하여 전원코드를 완성한 상태로 피고에게 공급하였으며, 피고는 위 전원코드의 플러그 반대쪽 부분의 벗겨진 구리선을 온수 세정기 본체의 전원공급장치에 연결한 다음 다시 PVC 사출기를 이용하여 연결부위를 감싸는 성형작업을 하여 온수 세정기의 전원코드 제작작업을 완료하였다.

(3) According to the above facts, although the fire of this case was not clearly revealed, it is difficult to view that the fire of this case occurred at the apartment of this case and its family members in the place where all of the plaintiff and their families living in the apartment of this case did not deal with the heating machinery, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view that there is a possibility of fireation or fire-prevention by people. Ultimately, the cause of the fire of this case should be viewed as a kind of electric power resource code of this case, so long as the electric power resource of this case occurred in the state of normal connection through the small water code of this case, unless there are special circumstances, the small water chemical of this case is "unfair danger due to the lack of reasonable safety required for the product from social norms." (As seen above, the defendant, the manufacturer, should prove that the fire of this case was caused by any other reason than the small water tank of this case, but it is not a defect of the presumption that the fire of this case had already been caused by the fire of this case due to the defect of the fixed water tank of this case.

(4) As to this, the Defendant asserted that there was no liability for damages caused by the fire of this case since one year has passed since the date of purchase, which is the three-dimensional quality warranty period of the hot water of this case, but the above quality warranty period is set within the free service period, such as repair of the three-dimensional defects of the hot water of this case and product exchange, and it is difficult to view that the period of exercising the right to claim damages caused by the three-dimensional defects of the hot water of this case or the period of existence of the Defendant's liability for damages has been set

(5) Furthermore, with regard to the scope of damages that the Defendant is liable for, the following facts: (a) as a result of the Defendant’s commission of appraisal to the Plaintiff’s health class, Gap’s Nos. 4, 8,9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 evidence or images; and (b) the Plaintiff’s commission of appraisal to the directors representing the fire damage adjustment corporation, in consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the instant court’s inquiry into the representative director, the total amount of KRW 10,846,037 in the instant apartment due to the instant fire was destroyed; (c) KRW 32,656,80 in the aggregate of the cost of improving and repairing the inside of the contaminated apartment contaminated with flame; (d) KRW 6,383,00 in aggregate with the cost of repairing and cleaning the contaminated apartment; and (e) KRW 6,380 in the instant apartment and KRW 208 in the instant case’s total amount of damages from August 29, 2003, 2005.

(6) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 19, 2004 to June 21, 2005, which is the date of the imposition of a substantial amount of judgment, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, as the Plaintiff seeks.

4. Determination on the independent party's claims

A. Intervenor’s assertion

The intervenor asserts that the intervenor did not manufacture and sell the cable used in the manufacture of the No.S. On the ground that the intervenor did not have any defect or defect in the above electric line even if the cable was used by the intervenor on the No.S. code, the intervenor asserted that the intervenor did not have any obligation to compensate the plaintiff, the victim of the fire of this case, and the defendant, the manufacturer of the No.S. on the No.S. code, and that the intervenor sought confirmation on the No.S. code.

B. Determination on the legitimacy of the request for intervention by an independent party

(1) An independent party participating in a lawsuit intends to claim that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the outcome of the lawsuit is a party, and then settle in a lump sum without inconsistency between the two parties by a single judgment, the intervenor must make a separate claim inconsistent with the principal claim against the plaintiff or the defendant in the lawsuit to be first participated, and the claim should be established by its own assertion, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit.

(2) With respect to the instant case, even though the intervenor's assertion itself is based on the assertion, since all or part of the subject matter of the instant lawsuit against the plaintiff or the defendant is not his own right, the intervenor's application for intervention as independent party does not meet the requirements for intervention as a right holder. Furthermore, in order to participate in the prevention of death, it should be objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant in the instant lawsuit have the intent to harm the intervenor through the pertinent lawsuit and that there is a concern that the plaintiff's rights or legal status may be infringed upon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da22795, 22801, Mar. 8, 196; 95Da4097, 40984, Jun. 27, 1997). Since the plaintiff claimed against the defendant for payment of damages caused by the fire caused by the defects of the time period that the defendant manufactured against the defendant, the defendant did not meet the requirements for the plaintiff's independent party participation in the instant lawsuit.

(3) In addition, a lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when it is an appropriate and effective method to resolve the present legal unstable situation between the parties. The plaintiff is seeking the payment of damages incurred by the plaintiff due to a fire that occurred due to the three times of hot water manufacturing manufactured by the defendant through the claim in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case. It does not dispute the existence or scope of the intervenor's liability for damages. Thus, there is no benefit to seek confirmation against the plaintiff, and further, the future legal relationship except conditional rights or time limit rights is not subject to confirmation in principle. The defendant's liability for damages is not confirmed and the defendant did not perform the above liability for damages against the defendant in the situation that the defendant did not fulfill the above liability for damages, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the claim for compensation against the plaintiff in the lawsuit in the course of the lawsuit in this case, and if the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case is lost, it is unlawful since it does not seek confirmation of the absence of all or part of the claim in the future legal relationship.

(4) Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention by an independent party against the Plaintiff and the Defendant is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for participation and the litigation requirements.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the intervenor's motion for intervention of the plaintiff and the defendant is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's motion for intervention of the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed. The plaintiff's motion for intervention of the plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-soo