[1] Whether product liability is subject to the burden of proof as to the defect of a product (=victim) and whether product liability is applicable in a case where damage occurs to the product itself due to the lack of suitability of the product (negative)

[2] In a case where Gap corporation entered into a contract with Eul corporation for the purchase of goods for the heat cogeneration power generation facilities and started driving after delivery, and the accident of damage to the whole bund, etc. of compressed machines on the wind from among the 19 table 19 table table, which constitutes the compressors, occurred among the power generation facilities, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the damaged bund corresponds to the parts constituting the empty empty, and all damaged parts of the damaged accident are different parts of the posters, and the cost necessary for repair and replacement of the posters were incurred in the product itself, and thus, it goes beyond the scope of the manufacturer's liability for damages under the Product Liability Act

[1] Articles 580 and 750 of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 580 and 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da35525 delivered on July 28, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1923)

DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Dongbu Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Law Firm Barun Law LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yoon Jae-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na75931 decided November 30, 2016

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

1. Basic factual basis

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

A. On October 31, 2000, Incheon Airport Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Incheon Airport Energy Co., Ltd.”) entered into a purchase contract with the Defendant for the heat cogeneration power generation facilities (hereinafter “instant power generation facilities”) around 1998, and began driving around March 29, 201 after receiving delivery of the instant power generation facilities from the Defendant.

B. On April 1, 201, around 10:34, among the instant power generation facilities, the occurrence of an accident involving damage to the total bundds of compressed machines and upper bundds, where one single bund (hereinafter “instant bund”) from among the 19th bund, consisting of two compresseds (hereinafter “instant bund”), was caused by damage to the wind, thereby damaging the empty bund and upper bundds, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a property comprehensive insurance contract on the Incheon Airport Energy and the instant power generation facilities. After examining the amount of damages for the Incheon Airport Energy due to the instant accident as KRW 9,130,727,583, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,276,734,589, which is a part of the amount of insurance coverage, based on the amount of insurance coverage.

2. Whether product liability is recognized (Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

A. Product liability refers to the liability to impose product liability on the manufacturer, etc. in a case where the safety of the product is not ordinarily expected is infringed or damaged due to a defect that causes damage to the life, body, or health of the product. Product liability is not recognized if the victim does not prove the defect of the product. Also, even if the damage was caused by the defect of the product, the damage that occurred to the product itself is not subject to product liability (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da35525 delivered on July 28, 2000, etc.).

B. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on product liability for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that there was a fluorous equal order from the time of production to the instant Bable World. The evidence consistent with the assertion lies in the final report on the cause of the instant accident prepared by the Korea Electric Power Institute (hereinafter “instant report”) and the testimony of the Non-Party witness of the lower court. However, in full view of various circumstances, such as the lack of scientific grounds in the content of the instant report, the lack of scientific grounds, and the loss of the broid, etc. during the process of the investigation, it is difficult to believe the content of the instant report, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) The instant block constitutes the parts constituting the instant posters, and all the parts damaged by the instant accident are different parts of the instant posters. Even if there is a defect in lack of safety ordinarily expected in the instant posters, the costs incurred in repairing and replacing the instant posters constitute damages arising out of the product itself, thereby exceeding the scope of manufacturer’s liability for damages under the Product Liability Act.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of products recognized as product liability by exceeding the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Liability for damages due to warranty against defects or incomplete performance (ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 4)

A. The lower court denied the Defendant’s liability for damages due to the Defendant’s defect liability or incomplete performance on the following grounds.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred at the time of 26,332 driving hours, including 48,000, the maintenance cycle notified by the Defendant to the Incheon Airport Energy, and that the Defendant bears the Defendant’s warranty liability. Although the instant accident occurred prior to the maintenance cycle indicated in the manual prepared by the company that actually manufactured the instant accelerator, the said maintenance cycle cannot be deemed as the defect warranty period.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant posters were liable for damages due to incomplete performance since the instant accident occurred, by using the fine ruptures or sub-fluorous materials that were vulnerable to manufacturing process, as the incomplete ruptures manufacturing and supplying the instant posters was defective. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant posters were defective and thus the instant accident occurred.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the defect liability period and the requirements for establishment of incomplete performance liability.

4. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)