민법상 고지의무 위반과 제조물책임법의 표시상 결함에 관한 고찰: 대법원 2023. 5. 18. 선고 2022다230677 판결을 중심으로

This article provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s May 18, 2023 decision, 2022da230677, regarding the violation of the duty of notice under the Civil Code and the defective labeling under the Product Liability Act. The Product Liability Act is a special law of the Civil Code, and its important feature is that it changes the tort liability requirement from negligence to product defect. The duty of notice under the Civil Code has no direct provision in the Civil Code, but has been developed through case law. The Supreme Court has held that a person has a fiduciary duty to notify the other party in advance of any circumstances that may affect the validity of the contract or endanger the other party’s rights. A defect in labeling is recognized as a defect in product liability when the manufacturer could have avoided or reduced the risk or damage caused by the product if it had given a reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or other indication regarding the product, but failed to do so. On the other hand, even if product liability law is a special provision of civil law, how to reconcile it with the law of the case can be problematic: even if a plaintiff alleges only civil tort liability, if the plaintiff’s claim includes a defect liability requirement under product liability law, product liability law should prevail. If the plaintiff’s allegations and proofs are insufficient in this respect, it is appropriate for the court to actively exercise its power of clarification to clarify the parties’ allegations and burdens of proof with respect to product liability so that product liability law can be applied. In light of this, the target court’s decision to recognize the defendant’s breach of the duty of notice and to apply the product liability law in preference to the civil law is reasonable. There is also room for the recognition of Warning Defects, design defects, and other defects under product liability law in this case. In future cases involving product liability, courts should consider whether the parties’ claims contain the facts necessary for defect liability under the Product Liability Act and, if not, clarify them through the active exercise of the right to clarify, so that the Product Liability Act is applied in preference to civil law.