손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The plaintiff's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's repeated argument or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance in paragraph (3) above with regard to new arguments, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be used after the dismissal shall be "6,929,165 won" in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "6,134,165 won."
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, "35,609,165 won after deducting KRW 1,320,000 of the remaining value of the part of this case as the plaintiff in KRW 36,929,1654 of the cost of the first instance judgment," and the remaining value of the part of this case as the plaintiff is 35,609,165 won after deducting KRW 66,134,165 of the cost of the first instance judgment, and KRW 29,205,00 of the down payment of the contract of this case as well as KRW 1,320,00 of the remaining value of the part of this case as the plaintiff.
The so-called production supply contract under which one of the parties to the contract agrees to supply goods made by using his own materials according to the other party's order and the other party shall pay the price for the manufacture. Since the so-called production supply contract has the nature of contract and the nature of sale and contract in terms of the supply of goods, the applicable law applies to the sale and purchase of goods to be manufactured and supplied under the contract. However, if the goods are substitute goods to meet the demand of a specific client, the supply of the goods becomes the main purpose of the contract, and the manufacture of the goods becomes the object of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21862, Oct. 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principle, in light of the above, the health belt of this case, and the elevator manufactured and installed by the plaintiff under the contract with the defendant by the defendant is specified as a certain specifications in accordance with the building operated by the defendant.