TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2006Da17539 Decided July 12, 2013¡¼Damages¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] How to determine international jurisdiction, and whether a court in the place where loss occurred has international jurisdiction in product liability cases against manufacturers making and selling goods [2] Under Article 13(1) of the former Conflict of Laws Act, whether ¡°a place where a cause occurred¡± includes a place where a loss resulted (affirmative) [3] Meaning of manufactured goods subject to product liability - whether directly supplied goods to a specific consumer under contract is included (affirmative) [4] Meaning of manufacturer subject to product liability - whether product liability exists for defects in the goods made and sold under the government¡¯s direction in a supply contract (affirmative) [5] Where a manufacturer designs and makes chemical goods containing toxic substance harmful to the human body, what does the duty of preventing risk entail, and if a manufacturer ignores the heightened duty to prevent risk and designs chemical goods likely to injure life and human body, whether the chemical goods are deemed as defective (affirmative in principle) [6] Where Gap (Vietnam War veterans) sought product liability damages from defoliant manufacturers, and foreign corporation Eul and others (¡°Eul¡±), asserting that they contracted disease like chloracne from defoliants made by Eul and sprayed in the Vietnam War, the Court affirming the judgment of the court below that some soldiers suffered loss from a specific disease chloracne by exposure to defoliant TCDD [7] Where epidemiological correlation between a specific risk factor and a non-specific disease is recognized, whether a probable causation between personal exposure and the non-specific disease occurrence can be deemed as proved (negative), and how to prove the probability in such a case [8] Where Gap (Vietnam War veterans) sought product liability damages from defoliant manufacturers Eul foreign corp., etc. (¡°Eul¡±) asserting they contracted diabetes from defoliant made by Eul and sprayed in the Vietnam War, the Court found error of misapprehending the legal principle as to epidemiological causation in the court below¡¯s holding that some soldiers suffered diabetes, a non-specific disease, by exposure to defoliant TCDD [9] Meaning of, and criterion for, determining ¡°when loss or tortfeasor is discovered¡± under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, and who bears the burden to prove the base date (i.e., the party asserting the expiration of the statute of limitations) [10] In a tort damages claim with time lag between the tort and the actual loss, the meaning of ¡°a date when one knows about tort¡± as the basis for the long-term statute of limitations under Article 766(2) of the Civil Act, and who bears the burden of proof of ¡°when objective and specific loss occurs¡± (i.e., the party asserting the expiration of the statute of limitations) [11] Where Gap (soldiers of the Vietnam War) sought product liability damages from defoliant manufacturers Eul foreign corp. and other (¡°Eul¡±), asserting they contracted diseases like chloracne from defoliant sprayed in the Vietnam War, and where Eul raised the statute of limitations defense, the case holding that the statute of limitations defense against some soldiers is abuse of rights, but not as to those who filed a preliminary attachment motion or lawsuit after three years from the defoliant patient registration [12] Whether the causation between the tort and the loss in a damages claim can be acknowledged proportionally (negative)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da16602 Decided July 25, 2013¡¼Damages¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da22775 Decided July 12, 2013¡¼Prohibition against Copyright Infringement, etc.¡½