The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act, which provides that when a buyer receives an object in a sale between merchants, he/she shall inspect it without delay and finds out any defect or shortage in quantity, the buyer shall not claim cancellation of the contract, reduction of the price, or damages due to the failure to dispatch the notice to the seller within six months if there is any defect not immediately discovered, and Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the buyer shall not claim cancellation of the contract, reduction of the price, or damages due to the failure to perform the obligation of the seller (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3671, May 15, 20

B. In the instant case where the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sold each of the instant lands contaminated by oil, heavy metals, etc. to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are liable for damages due to the seller’s warranty liability or incomplete performance, the lower court rejected the claim for damages due to the warranty liability on the ground that the Plaintiff was a sale between merchants, and that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of any defect in soil contamination, etc. in each of the instant lands, etc., more than six months after the transfer of each of the instant lands from the Defendant and the completion of the registration of ownership transfer. On the other hand, the lower court acknowledged the liability for damages equivalent to the cost of purifying the contaminated soil on the ground that the Defendant’s transfer of each of the instant lands without purifying contaminated soil constitutes incomplete performance.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below recognized liability for damages caused by incomplete performance.