하자담보책임에서 증명책임 완화의 가능성과 한계 - 서울중앙지방법원 2016. 1. 27. 선고 2015나9478 판결 -

This article examines the buyer’s burden of proof regarding the existence and temporal locus of “defect” (haja) under Article 580 of the Korean Civil Code on the seller’s liability for defects, and analyzes the possibilities and limits of relaxing the burden of proof in order to alleviate consumers’ evidentiary difficulties in transactions involving technologically complex products. Under the traditional theory of classification of legal requirements , the burden of proving the defect rests with the buyer; however, in light of informational asymmetries in modern markets, the need has been raised to analogically apply the rules on relaxation of the burden of proof developed in product liability law. In this context, the case that serves as the focal point of this study, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Na9478 of 27 January 2016, opened the door to exceptional relaxation of the burden of proof by relying on “special circumstances” where the seller can be equated with the manufacturer. This article argues, however, that in view of the fundamental differences between defect liability and product liability with respect to normative purpose, structure of liability, and scope of recoverable loss, extending product liability doctrines across the board to contractual defect liability by way of analogy risks undermining systemic coherence. Rather than relying solely on judicial expansion through analogy, it is preferable to pursue legislative alternatives— such as the enactment of a Consumer Contracts Act or the introduction of evidence-disclosure mechanisms—to reconcile the protection of buyers with the foreseeability interests of sellers. In conclusion, the article contends that any relaxation of the burden of proof in the context of defect liability should preserve the foundations of contractual liability while realizing substantive equality through institutionally designed, legislative reform.