KG Mobility refutes results of re-enactment test

KG Mobility, formerly known as SsangYong Motor Co., on Monday refuted the results of a recent re-enactment test conducted to determine the cause of an unintended acceleration accident that led to the death of a teenager.

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

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

The family of the deceased teenager filed a damages suit against KG Mobility, seeking approximately 760 million won ($552,000) in compensation.

In a re-enactment test of the accident conducted by a court-appointed expert in April, results supported the claim that the grandmother did not press the accelerator pedal during the accident. The plaintiffs argued that the acceleration was caused by a vehicle defect.

In response, KG Mobility refuted the objectivity of the re-enactment test.

It claimed the re-enactment test was carried out under conditions presented by the plaintiffs and added, "Various conditions, such as acceleration circumstances, differences between the incident vehicle and the test vehicle and differences in road conditions do not align with the National Forensic Service's analysis results and verified objective data."

KG Mobility also argued the test was conducted under the assumption that the driver fully pressed the accelerator pedal for approximately 35 seconds in all driving sections. It also noted 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 of interpreting the transmission patterns derived during the re-enactment test were not properly communicated to the expert.

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

Yonhap