(a) Party Represented by Barun Law: We represented Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (the "plaintiff")

(b) Background of the Case: The plaintiff's insured purchased a forklift from the defendant and was using it in their building when a fire broke out from the forklift, spreading to the building. This resulted in damage to the building’s internal facilities and items. After compensating the insured for the damages, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming damages based on tort liability due to defects in the forklift (as the statute of limitations had expired for claiming damages under the Product Liability Act).

(c) Details of Litigation: In this lawsuit, the plaintiff emphasized that the origin of the fire was the forklift. They argued that, even outside of claims under the Product Liability Act, when claiming damages due to product defects, the burden of proof on the consumer side should be reduced because it is extremely difficult for consumers to scientifically and technically prove the defect and causation of the damage. The plaintiff also highlighted that the forklift was managed and used in a normal manner.

The Seoul Central District Court largely accepted the plaintiff's claims, recognizing the defendant's liability for damages based on tort, though the liability was partially limited.

The court ruled that in cases involving defects in highly technical, mass-produced products, if an accident occurs under normal usage, and if the consumer demonstrates that the accident occurred in an area exclusively controlled by the manufacturer and that such an accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence. unless the manufacturer can prove that the accident was caused by something other than a defect in the product, it can be presumed that the product had a defect and that the defect caused the accident, thus making the manufacturer liable for damages. This eased the burden of proof on the plaintiff, leading to the recognition of the liability for damages.

We argued, based on Supreme Court precedents, that even when the Product Liability Act does not apply, the burden of proof should be relaxed regarding product defects and the resulting damage. We emphasized that the insured used the forklift in a standard manner and that the fire originated in the engine room, an area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer.

This ruling reaffirmed that even when the Product Liability Act cannot be applied due to the statute of limitations, the burden of proof should be reduced in cases involving product defects and causation of resulting damages. This ruling can be referenced in future lawsuits related to damage caused by defects in construction or mechanical equipment.

- Attorney involved: Park Sang-Oh