In a case where there is no particular problem for at least one month after a sprinklerr was constructed, and a flood accident occurred due to escape from the connection part, the case recognizing product liability for the manufacturer and supplier of the sprinklerr.

In a case where there is no particular problem for at least one month after a sprinklerr was constructed, and a flood accident occurred due to the escape of a sudden connecting part, the case holding that product liability is granted to the singler manufacturer and supplier.

Product Liability Act, Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Song Jin-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yu Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 15, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,830,000 won with 20% interest per annum from January 12, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

(1) On June 2005, the Plaintiff, a specialized company for the construction of fire-fighting equipment, was supplied with all fire-fighting systems at the time of the construction of the Daejeon Emblick Building (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff supplied 3,200 sprinklers from the Defendant, a manufacturer or seller of fire-fighting equipment, and used them for fire-fighting system installation of the instant building.

(2) 피고가 납품한 스프링클러는 별지 도면과 같이 주름관(플렉시블 관) 중 SP 너트와 연결되는 부위를 패킹으로 감싸고 그 위를 다시 SP 압착링이 감싼 제품으로서, SP 압착링의 내경에 걸림턱이 형성되고 이 걸림턱은 주름관의 홈에 끼워진 상태에서 SP 너트에 결합되어 있으며, SP 압착링의 외경이 SP 너트의 외경보다 크게 제작된다. 원고는 주름관이 결합된 상태로 출고된 SP 너트를 나사를 이용하여 SP 닛뿔과 조립만 하는 방식으로 시공하였다. 한편, SP 너트는 황동으로 제작되었고, SP 압착링은 플라스틱으로 제작되었다.

(3) From August 3, 2006, as the oil pipeline connecting 1408 of the instant building and the oil pipeline connecting strawer came from SPppppppher, the fire extinguishing water in the spheringr pipe pipe could not be sphered out and sphered out from the ceiling, and thus, the fire extinguishing water in the spingr pipe pipe could not be used in the water.

(4) The SP pressureing or oil pipeline (the part connected to SP pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

(5) The external diameter of the sphere of the instant sphere is produced by 0.35mm exceeding 0.45mm, which is small, compared to the size of 28.8mm submitted by the Defendant at the time of passing the approval approval, compared to the size submitted by the Defendant at the time of passing the approval approval.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 12, 14, 15, 16, Eul evidence 1 through 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), non-party 1's witness witness's witness's witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Grounds for liability

(1) A manufacturer 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 the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of its distribution in light of its structure, quality, performance, etc. In the event of an accident being normally used, consumers are liable to compensate for damages caused by a defect in its safety and durability. On the other hand, where the manufacturer is liable to compensate for damages caused by a defect in the product manufactured in large quantity due to a high level of technology concentration, the process of manufacturing the product can only be known to only the manufacturer who is an expert, and whether the defect was caused by the defect can be identified as the general public. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for consumers to prove scientific and technical causation between the defect in the product and the occurrence of the defect and the damage. In the event of an accident being normally used in the product, the consumer bears the responsibility to compensate for damages caused by the accident in the area where the accident occurred under exclusive control of the manufacturer, and if the accident is ordinarily caused by a defect in the manufacturer’s ordinary situation without fault, the manufacturer’s burden of proof of the defect is not attributable to the defect.

(2) According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred when there was no anything more than one month after executing the sprinkler, and the part connecting the oil pipeline was released from the SPpppppher. The SPpherr of this case is supplied in a single form by the SPppppppppher and SPppppppppphering, and if SPpppphering is not performed because it was unreasonable while executing the construction, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety and durability of the product. Furthermore, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff engaged in the construction solely on the ground that there was a defect in the SPpppppher's construction, or that the Plaintiff was out of the location of the SPpppphering due to the alteration of internal structure. Ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was liable for damages to the Plaintiff as the manufacturer of this case, even though the Plaintiff installed the instant sprinkler, as the manufacturer of this case.

(3) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, as a product approved for authorization, the license of this case is exempt from product liability pursuant to Article 4(1)3 of the Product Liability Act, as long as it complies with the statutory standards at the time of supply. However, unlike the size of the product for which the license approval was granted, the external diameter was produced in a size that deviates from the permissible error. Thus, the Defendant’s test approval standards cannot be deemed to have been complied with. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Scope of damages.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12, the comprehensive construction of crew members, who is the executor of the building of this case, was paid to the non-party 2, who is the occupant of the above 1408, the total construction of the building of this case, KRW 15 million, KRW 870,000,000, KRW 2080,000,000 in the floor, KRW 2080,000,000 in the floor, KRW 2,190,000,000 in the construction of the building, including the cost of reconstruction, KRW 40,00,000,000 in the board of directors, KRW 40,000,000,00 in the cost of cleaning goods, KRW 60,000 in the cost of cleaning goods, and KRW 50,000,00 in the comprehensive construction of crew members.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,830,000 won and damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of 20% per annum from January 12, 2007 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.

Judges Maternology