A. Criteria to determine whether there is a defect in product liability

(b) Where the defect in the structure or manufacturing of the transformers can be presumed from an accident in which the transformers system has explosiond by a progressive combustion process;

(c) the legal nature of the arrangement that guarantees the performance of the manufacturer for a certain period of time in the production and supply contract (=performance security) and the term of performance guarantee (=performance security period)

A. A manufacturer who manufactures and sells a product is liable to manufacture a product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of modern technological level and economic feasibility in terms of its structure, quality, and performance. In the event of loss to consumers due to any defect or defect not equipped with safety and durability, the manufacturer is liable to compensate for tort, separate from contractual liability.

(b)where there is a method by which to minimize progressive combustion of the transformers, and by such a method, to minimize the heat saving by that method, if the minimum annual life exceeds the existing use period, the smoke saving that occurred before the year exceeds the existing use period may be presumed to be defective in the structure or manufacture without any means to minimize the heat saving as above.

C. Under a contract for manufacture and supply, the manufacturer shall guarantee the performance of the product for a certain period after normal operation, and the manufacturer shall repair the product free of charge for the defect that occurs within the performance guarantee period, but if the consumer decides that the product is not to be used, the manufacturer shall immediately re-production and supply the product, the performance guarantee is an agreement between the parties to the contract for manufacture and supply, which promises that the manufacturer shall perform the incomplete performance, such as repairing, exchanging, etc. when the defect in the subject matter of the contract exists or the defect in the object

(b)Article 750(c) of the Civil Code;

Attorney Lee Young-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Gongh-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na52212 delivered on April 8, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 그 거시증거에 의하여 원고가 경영하는 연화광업소 내의 자체변전소에 설치된 계기용 변압변류기(Metering Outfit, M.O.F.)에서 1987.1.17. 10:00 화재가 발생하여(이하 이를 1차 폭발이라 한다) 위 광업소 소속 직원인 망 소외 1 및 소외 2 등이 소화기로 진화작업을 하고 일단 불길을 잡은 뒤, 같은 날 10:15경 뒤돌아 나가려는 순간 위 변압변류기가 폭발하여(이하 이를 2차 폭발이라 한다) 위 변압변류기 내부에서 가열된 절연유가 쏟아져 나오면서 위 소외 1과 위 소외 2를 덮쳐 그들이 전신에 중화상을 입고 위 소외 1은 같은 달 25. 위 화상으로 인한 패혈증 및 폐부전증 등으로 사망한 사실, 위 변압변류기는 영화산업전기제작소라는 상호로 전기기계제조업을 경영하는 피고가 원고와의 제작납품계약에 따라 1984.10.31. 대금 11,000,000원에 제작하여 설치한 사실, 위 1차 폭발은 이상전압 침입 또는 기기절연열화 등의 원인으로 선간 또는 층간 합선에 의한 단락 즉 절연파괴가 발생하여 아크(Arc)가 발생하자 그에 의해 발생되는 열과 아크시 흐르는 대전류에 의해 발생되는 전자력에 의해 변성기(PotentialTransformer, PT) 1차 코일의 하단부분이 소손 및 약간 파괴되고, 동시에 주위 절연유가 고온 및 기화되면서 인화점 이상이 되어 일어난 것으로서 위 소외 1, 소외 2 등의 진화작업으로 일단 소화되었다가, 위 1차 폭발로 과전류계기가 작동하여 끊어진 전력이 다시 위 변압변류기에 공급되자 이미 1차 폭발로 전기절연이 완전히 파괴되고 절연유의 온도가 고온으로 기화된 상태에서 위 변압변류기 안팎에 66,000볼트의 고전압이 흐르게 되어 1차 폭발 때 보다 더 큰 아크가 발생하여 내부압력이 커져 1차 폭발시보다 상부덮개가 더 많이 벌어지면서 재차 폭발함으로써 절연유가 분출하는 등 2차 폭발이 일어나게된 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고가 위 변압변류기의 폭발은 그 내부구조상의 중대한 하자로 인하여 발생한 것이라고 주장한 데에 대하여, 그 거시증거에 의하면 위 변압변류기는 1984.9.14. 형식승인을 획득하고 같은 해 10.4. 한국전기통신연구소의 검수시험에 합격한 후 원고의 위 광업소에 설치, 사용되어 온 사실, 위 1차 폭발의 원인으로는 외부 이상전압의 침입, 부분방전에 의한 절연열화, 내부발생열에 의한 절연열화, 외부사고 파급 등을 추정할 수 있으나 이중 내부발생열이 방산되지 않아 온도가 상승하여 절연열화가 발생하였을 가능성은 위 변압변류기가 형식승인 및 검사시험시의 온도상승시험에 합격하였음에 미루어 극히 희박하고 또 위 폭발당시 외부사고가 있었음을 인정할 아무런 자료도 없어 외부사고 파급에 의한 절연파괴를 원인이라 보기도 어려워서, 결국 1차 폭발의 원인은 위 변압변류기가 설치당시는 절연상태 및 구조 등이 양호하였으나 설치후 약 2년 2개월이 경과한 후인 1차 폭발당시 서어지(Surge) 등 외부 이상전압의 침입이나 부분방전에 의한 절연열화 등의 원인에 의해 변성기 1차코일의 선간 또는 층간 단락 즉 절연파괴에 의해 화재가 발생한 것으로 추정되는 사실, 일반적으로 고전압전기기기는 직격뇌와 유도뇌에 의한 이상전압 등 원인이 계통외부로부터 주어지는 외부 이상전압, 개폐서어지, 지락시 과도진동전압 등 원인이 내부에 있는 내부 이상전압 등 각종 이상전압에 노출되어 있으나 모든 외부조건에 견디는 고전압전기기기의 제작은 불가능하므로 통계적으로 사고율을 최적화한 절연설계를 하며 최악의 운전조건 하에서나 최악의 조건이 아니더라도 이상전압이 자주 발생하면 충격이 누적되어 작은 이상전압에서도 전기기기의 절연이 파괴되므로 이 때에는 사고기기를 전력계통으로부터 신속히 분리, 구분하여 사고파급을 방지하기 위한 보호장치를설치하는 사실, 한편 위 변압변류기에 설치되었던 안전판이 이 사건 사고시 작동하지 않은 원인은 위 안전판과 아크발생지점사이에는 절연칸막이 등이 있어 완화된 간접충격이 안전판에 가해졌던 탓으로 추정되며, 2차 폭발시 안전판이 동작하였더라도 안전판을 통하여 절연유가 분출하였을 것이므로 안전판주위의 작업원이 화상을 입었을 가능성은 큰 것으로 추정되는 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 변압변류기에 원고 주장의 내부구조상의 중대한 하자가 있어 이 사건 사고가 발생한 것이라고 볼 수 없으며, 그 밖에 위 변압변류기에 구조 또는 제작과정에 중대한 하자가 있음을 인정할 아무런 주장 및 자료도 없다고 판단하여 위 원고 주장을 배척하였다.

2. However, with respect to the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the product, the manufacturer who manufactures and sells the product is liable to manufacture the product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of modern technological level and economic feasibility. In the event of damages to the consumer due to any defect or defect in safety and durability, the manufacturer shall be separately liable to compensate for tort, which is not the contractual obligation.

In this case, in light of the appraiser 1's appraisal results, which are used as the main evidence of the above judgment, the court below presumed to be the cause of the first explosion, first, it is presumed that there is a high possibility of an effication or an effication by intrusion of external abnormal voltage such as brain shock effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication effication.

In sum, the appraisal results are as follows: (a) the cause of the first explosion is presumed to be a sudden destruction by an intrusion by external voltage, or by a continuous partial destruction by force; (b) the explosion by intrusion by external abnormal voltage is divided into the cases of a sudden destruction by force majeure exceeding 350km; and (c) the cases of a sudden destruction by force by force with high voltage exceeding 350km; and (d) the cases of a sudden destruction by force with a cumulative shock by a small voltage of less than 350km.

However, examining the contents of the appraisal statement prepared by the above appraiser, it is evident that the manufacture of an alternative and rupture with the safety and durability of any voltage exceeding 350kV is not expected in light of the modern technological level and economic feasibility. Therefore, it is evident that there is a defect or defect in the rupture change of this case.

However, even after examining the contents of the above appraisal, in the case of a strush destruction by a progressive reduction by a cumulative shock of a small voltage of not more than 350kv or by a continued partial voltage, whether there is a method that can prevent or minimize such a progressive reduction, and if so, if there is a method that can expect to minimize the rupture by such a method, i.e., the minimum performance preservation period, the degree of which is unclear.

If there is a method to minimize progressive heating, and it is found that there is a defect in structure or manufacturing that does not take a method to minimize the heating, if the minimum life exceeds 2 years and 2 months, if there is a minimum period of durability, it can be presumed that there is a defect in the structure or manufacturing that does not take a method to minimize the heating as above.

However, upon examining the evidence Nos. 1 and 13-11 of evidence Nos. 13-2, which the court below employed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant in the contract for the manufacture and supply of the transformers of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant shall guarantee the performance of the above transformers of this case for one year after normal operation, and shall repair without compensation any defects that occur within the performance guarantee period. However, if the plaintiff determines that the use is not permitted, the defendant is aware that the contract for the manufacture and supply of the above performance guarantee was agreed to promptly re-production the contract, but the contract for the performance guarantee is an agreement that the debtor promises to complete the incomplete performance, such as repair and exchange of the contract in case the contract for the manufacture and supply

3. The lower court should have deliberated and determined whether the cause of the first explosion of the transformers of this case was a shock of voltages exceeding 350kV, and whether the cause of the second explosion was a efficiencies at a time, and where a efficiencies occurred due to the cumulative shocks of or continued part of voltages not more than 350km, it should have deliberated and determined whether there was any defect in the transformers of this case, or whether there was any defect in the voltages of this case, by examining whether there was a method to minimize the efficencies as above, if it is presumed in the latter.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.