KG Mobility doubts the credibility of the reenactment of a fatal accident: A legal dispute ensues

Cars are parked at a used car showroom in Seoul’s Gangseo district. In this photo, a copy was provided by KG Mobility on May 20. Yonhap

KG Mobility, formerly known as SsangYong Motor, on Monday refuted the results of a recent re-enactment test conducted to determine the cause of a suspected accident caused by unintended acceleration of a company vehicle that resulted in the death of a teenager.

The accident occurred in December 2022 in Gangneung, Gangwon Province, when a KG Mobility SUV driven by a grandmother went out of control, allegedly due to the car’s sudden, unintended acceleration. This resulted in the death of her grandson, who was also in the vehicle.

The family of the deceased teenager has filed a lawsuit against KG Mobility, demanding compensation of around 760 million won (US$552,407).

When a court-appointed expert reenacted the accident in April, the results confirmed the claim that the grandmother did not press the accelerator during the accident. The plaintiffs argued that the acceleration was caused by a vehicle defect.

KG Mobility then disputed the objectivity of the reenactment test.

It claimed that the re-enactment test was carried out under the conditions cited by the plaintiffs, adding: “Various conditions, such as acceleration circumstances, differences between the accident vehicle and the test vehicle, and differences in road conditions, are inconsistent with the analysis results and verified objective data from the National Forensic Service.”

KG Mobility also argued that the test was conducted assuming that the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to 100 percent for approximately 35 seconds in all driving sections. It also pointed out that the accident occurred on an uphill road, but the test was conducted on flat ground.

The company also claimed that some data and the method for interpreting the transmission patterns observed during the mock test were not properly communicated to the expert.

It also argued that the family’s independent test last month on the vehicle’s automatic emergency braking (AEB) system was not approved by the court, and that such a test, which was not conducted under the court’s supervision, cannot be considered objective evidence. (Yonhap)