<Case Summary>

A Seoul apartment fire that killed a grandfather (70s) and his 7-year-old grandson was traced to an internet router installed inside the building’s entryway telecom box. A trial court ordered the telecom company that installed and owned the router to compensate the bereaved family.


—

🔎 What happened

The family alleged the fire began inside the home’s entry-area telecom cabinet, where the telecom company had installed a leased router (three months before the incident).

Investigators reportedly found electrical short-circuit traces only on the router adapter, supporting a finding that the fire resulted from electrical failure, not an external ignition source.



—

⚖️ The ruling (trial court)

After about three years of litigation, the court ordered the telecom company to pay approximately KRW 460 million (funeral costs, consolation damages, and related losses).

Two aspects stand out:

1. Liability despite not being the manufacturer
The court treated this as a case where the telecom company provided the device to customers with an implied promise of safety, and therefore should shoulder responsibility for defects or risks tied to that device, even if the telecom company didn’t manufacture it.


2. “No-fault” style responsibility for leased equipment
The court’s reasoning, as reported, emphasizes risk-based responsibility tied to ownership and provision of the equipment. In plain terms: if you put the device there, keep ownership of it, and profit from its use, you don’t get to step outside the blast radius when it fails.




—

🎯 Why the court still limited liability to 80%

The court reportedly capped the telecom company’s responsibility at 80%, citing factors such as:

It may be difficult for a buyer (telecom) to screen out every defective unit when purchasing devices in volume.

Practical realities around detecting defects in advance.


(That split is likely to be the emotional lightning rod on appeal: the tragedy was total, but liability was apportioned.)


—

📌 Takeaways

Leasing changes the legal gravity. When a company owns a device placed in a customer’s home and controls the supply chain choice, courts may treat it as the party best positioned to bear (and spread) the risk.

“Not the manufacturer” is not an automatic shield. Especially where the provider markets the equipment as part of a service bundle and the consumer cannot realistically inspect or maintain it (here, inside a telecom cabinet).

Apportionment remains the battlefield. Even where causation is accepted, courts may still reduce liability based on foreseeability, quality-control burdens, or other fairness considerations.



—

*Procedural note

The telecom company reportedly appealed, stating it respects the trial court’s decision but disputes parts of the reasoning.

Article: https://mnews.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?newsId=N1008399988&plink=ORI&cooper=NAVER