[선박수리공사청부잔대금][집10(2)민,333]
Cases of failure to determine whether the contractor's defense that there is a defect in the completed object of the contract;
It is erroneous for the contractor to decide on the defense that there is a defect in the subject matter which has been completed and completed until delivery.
Article 667 of the Civil Act
Korea Coast Guard Corporation
Daeyang Shipping Corporation
Busan District Court Decision 61No487 delivered on December 1, 1961
The original judgment shall be reversed.
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as follows.
(1) According to the first instance court's decision as to No. 2, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff supplied the daily product of legal reserve under subparagraph 1-2 to the defendant, and that part of the plaintiff did not supply the remainder despite the supply of the product, and that the plaintiff decided to purchase the above product and supply it to the defendant. Accordingly, according to the court's decision, the court below decided that the plaintiff's purchase of the above product and the supply of the product to the defendant is without dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, according to the first instance court's decision as to No. 1-1, No. 2-1, No. 1-2 (the evidence No. 1-2 was part of No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2) and No. 4-1 of No. 4-1, although the detailed estimate amount for each part of this case was stated in the detailed estimate for each part of this case, the plaintiff did not indicate any price for the above product and there is no reason for the court below's determination as to the above product price of this part of total construction.
(2) Even after examining the case records and the original judgment regarding Articles 3 and 4 of the Reasons for Appeal, it is impossible to find out that the lower court failed to render a decision as to the Defendant’s alleged facts, as well as to find out that the lower court violated the rules of experience and logic even after examining the evidence prepared by the lower court, and there is no further deliberation or lack of reasoning, and therefore, it is not reasonable to hold that there was no other trial
(3) According to the records of No. 1 of the Reasons for Appeal, since the defendant was unable to use the goods listed in the first list of the original judgment attached to the original judgment, the plaintiff did not comply with the plaintiff even though the defendant demanded substitution of the plaintiff, so it was inevitable that the defendant suffered losses in the amount of No. 948,000 currency spent by replacing the defendant, and even though the defendant used new goods equivalent to No. 95,000 currency at the market price of No. 1 of the new goods, the use of the used goods in the amount of No. 35,000 currency currency at the market price of No. 1 of the new goods was 45,000 currency market price, and even though the defendant decided to substitute the new goods, the defendant did not raise an objection, so it is obvious that the above amount should be deducted from the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's liability for warranty even if the construction work was completed.
Therefore, since the appeal of this case is well-grounded in this point, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to make a new trial and determination.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,