B. Purport of Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act

B. The purport of Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act’s provision on the buyer’s inspection of the object and the duty to notify defects is to make it difficult for the seller to investigate the defects of the object at the time of delivery and to lose an opportunity for resale if the contract is left neglected in an unstable state for a long time, such as the Civil Act, in a sale between merchants. In addition, the buyer’s prompt determination of commercial transactions is made by imposing a buyer with the professional knowledge that could easily find defects in order to prevent the sale between merchants, on the grounds that the seller’s failure to remain in an unstable state for a long time, such as the provision on the duty to promptly inspect and notify defects at the time of delivery.

According to the court below's reasoning, the court below agreed to manufacture and supply local vehicles, such as fat, shoulder, cococon, and satise, to the defendant, using automatic packaging machines, cutting them into a single package package in the form proposed by the order, and then put them into a proper quantity within the country, and sell them to the plaintiff during the market. The plaintiff manufactures and sells the above automatic packaging paper to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can cut the automatic packaging paper for the plaintiff to pack domestic products in accordance with the design and standards presented by the defendant (the above automatic packaging machine can be cut out only in a specific size, and if it exceeds the above specifications, it cannot be cut immediately because it is not automatically cut in accordance with the above excessive specifications, and it can be found that the defendant's automatic packaging paper manufactured and supplied the above automatic packaging paper to the defendant without delay, and it can be found that the defendant's automatic packaging paper was no longer than 2 months after the plaintiff's aforementioned defect was discovered and supplied without delay, and it can be found that the above automatic packaging paper was no more than 2 months after the defendant'satis found.

Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act provides for the buyer's duty to inspect the object and to notify defects in the sale between merchants. Thus, the court below can be seen as a sale between merchants and the above judgment is made on the ground that the package supply contract of this case constitutes a sale between merchants.

In this case, the so-called production supply contract, in which one of the parties agrees to supply goods made of his own use of materials according to the order of the other party and the other party agrees to pay the price therefor in response thereto, is in the nature of the contract for its production and in terms of supply, there are no special provisions in the Civil Act, etc. as to which law shall govern the sale and purchase of goods in substitution and contract. If an article to be manufactured and supplied under a contract is a substitute, it shall be deemed sale and purchase as well, even if the provision on sale and purchase is applicable. However, if an article is a substitute for meeting the demand of a specific ordering party, it shall be made with the supply of the article as its main purpose of the contract and have the nature of the contract, so it shall not be deemed that the provisions on sale and purchase are naturally applicable to the seller unless it is discovered that there is a lack of quantity or defects in the contract between the seller and the seller without delay an opportunity to promptly accept the contract from the seller during the period of sale and purchase, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the provisions on sale and sale shall not be applied.

According to the records, the packaging of this case is printed with a certain pattern and standard according to the defendant's order, and it is possible for the defendant to use the packaging paper by printing the name of the defendant company, and the plaintiff or the defendant can not sell it to others. Under these circumstances, if the packaging paper of this case supplied by the plaintiff is difficult or impossible to dispose of it to others, it can be deemed a substitute product, and in such a case, it cannot be said that there is no need for a more rapid conclusion of the transaction relation pursuant to Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Act.

Ultimately, the court below's determination that the above provisions of the Commercial Code shall apply without further deliberation on the above circumstances cannot avoid criticism that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Code, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)