손해배상
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the court's decision on the plaintiff's grounds for appeal to this case as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom, since the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are defective in weight below the original part of the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff. This is not different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court are
B. Furthermore, according to Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act, when a buyer receives an object in trading between merchants, he/she shall inspect it without delay, and when a defect or shortage in quantity is discovered, he/she shall not claim cancellation of the contract, reduction in the price, or compensation for damages due to the failure to immediately dispatch the notice to the seller, and the term "when he/she receives the object" refers to when the object is placed under the actual possession of the buyer and it can be confirmed whether the defect or shortage in quantity
[See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da203806, Feb. 18, 2016; 2015Da203813, etc.] According to each of the evidence Nos. 1, Nos. 1, 2015Da203813, etc., the Defendant’s order was found to have supplied the original part of the original part, which was ordered by the Plaintiff, to B, E, a place designated by the Plaintiff around September 15, 2015. Thus, it can be confirmed that the Plaintiff could actually possess the said original part of the original part and receive from the Defendant around September 15, 2015 when it was supplied to the place designated by the Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not immediately examine the defects, such as the shortage of weight, and did not notify the defendant thereof, and further mentioned any defects in the defect report dated October 2, 2015 (Evidence No. 4 and 5).