부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim Nos. 1, 2, and 3 added by this court are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
1. The reasons for this Court’s entry are the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the first instance judgment, “Plaintiff B” shall be deemed “B”, “Plaintiffs” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiffs”, “Plaintiffs” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiffs”, “main books” in Chapter 14 shall be deleted, and “Preliminary Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) shall be deemed to be “B.”
B. On the 4th written judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” in the 9th written judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed “B”, “1,00 tons” in the 16th written judgment of the same side shall be deemed “3 tons”, and “the testimony of the witness H” in the 21st written judgment shall be deemed “each testimony of the witness H and the witness K of the first instance trial.”
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s primary claim, was the Plaintiff, to purchase the instant supply contract from E in order to believe that the Plaintiff would be able to develop the main product using the SigMampha and then became a party to the instant supply contract, with the Defendant’s consent to the acceptance of the said contract, that the Plaintiff would have been able to purchase the main product using the SigMampha and that the continuous period of its effect would be permanent.
However, even though the defendant supplied the plaintiff with the same performance and notified the method of use, or did not inform the plaintiff of the method of use of the specification at all. Although the plaintiff tried to develop the product using the co-rating system that combines the vision on his own, the defendant did not have any rupture or rupture.
As can be seen, the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to the price of supplied goods by supplying gympha that did not have the performance guaranteed by the instant supply contract. As such, the Plaintiff is served with a duplicate of the instant complaint.