1. According to the records on the first ground of appeal, Article 18 (1) of the Special Conditions for Quality Management of the Goods Purchase Contract (hereinafter “Special Conditions”), provides that “A contracting officer or the head of a quality control group shall be liable to repair defects in the goods supplied for one year from the date of delivery,” and Article 18 (3) of the same Act provides that “If the size and quality of the goods supplied are found to be different from the contents of the contract, the contracting officer or the head of a quality control group may notify the other party to the contract of such fact and request the return of substitute goods or the price of the goods in question.” In full view of the overall purport of Article 18 (1) of the Special Conditions, the warranty period of one year stipulated in Article 18 (1) of the same Act is not the one applied only to the repair of defects, but also the exercise period applicable to the replacement of goods or the return of the price of the goods in question.”

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the warranty period of one year under Article 18 (1) of the Special Conditions does not apply to the claim for the return of goods under paragraph (3) is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the return of goods price or the warranty period

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is liable for nonperformance, other than the warranty liability, and that the warranty liability is not applied to that case, the lower court takes priority over the first and third special terms, setting the priority of contractual interpretation.