beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 27, 2017, when a fire on September 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred from the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “instant automobile”), the said automobile was relocated to the Plaintiff. Since the defect or defect on the part of the instant automobile was the cause of the instant fire, the Defendant, a manufacturer or tort, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom, including KRW 74,050,000 in total, KRW 71,050,000 in value of the instant automobile and KRW 70,000 in compensation for the damages incurred therefrom.
2. Determination
A. On the assertion of general tort liability, even if there was a defect in the manufacture of the instant motor vehicle, it does not constitute tort against the Defendant, not the manufacturer of the instant motor vehicle, but the importer of the instant motor vehicle.
(No basis exists to acknowledge the concept of de facto manufacture as asserted by the Plaintiff, and even if not, there is no evidence to deem that the instant automobile had a defect in its manufacture as seen below).
Product liability is a liability for damages incurred to a manufacturer, etc. in the event of a loss of life, body, or property due to a defect ordinarily expected to be manufactured, and “property damage incurred only to manufactured goods” is excluded in this context (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4824, Mar. 26, 2015). However, the Plaintiff’s claim for product liability is without merit, since the vehicle price damage, operating profit, or temporary loss caused by the instant vehicle itself or incidental thereto is damage.
C. We also examine whether there was a defect in the manufacturing of the instant vehicle, which serves as the premise for the Plaintiff’s assertion.
Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 9 (including each number), and images of this Court, and the result of the appraisal of appraiser D and the fact-finding of this Court.