제조물 결함의 증명책임 완화에 관한 연구 - 하급심 판결의 분석을 포함하여 -

Abstract

By Supreme Court Decision 98Da15934 decided February 25, 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the product would be assumed to be defective if victim would prove accident associated with the defective product occurred in the area under exclusive control of manufacturer and such accident normally does not occur without negligence, and there is no other counterevidence. Since then lower courts have been ruling cases relating defective products according to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. However, the Supreme Court decision needs to be modified with regard to realistic doctrine for the following reasons. First, analysis of the lower court rulings show that because the Supreme Court decision requires victim to prove that accidents occurred under exclusive control of the manufacturer, victim would face difficulties in proving that an accident has occurred in the product inside. Also, even in some cases that it is hard to see that an accident had taken place under exclusive control of manufacturer, the courts assumed the defect in order to acquire concrete validity. Moreover the Supreme Court decision has limitations as it is hard to be applied to cases regarding products such as pharmaceuticals which have narrow area under exclusive control. On the other hand the Supreme Court has been modifying the doctrine regarding burden of proof related to manufacturing defect in order to aid the victims. However if the Congress passes the legislation regarding burden of proof related to manufacturing defect, the Courts would be forced to apply it even if it is to the disadvantages of the victim. Therefore, it is a problem to decide carefully in consideration of various circumstances whether the distribution criteria of the burden of proof on the defective should be legalized or be left on the doctrine formation of court.