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..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 29, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, who engages in the business of selling heavy equipment and components, to purchase 45 tons of oil 265,000 tons (including engine performance and exhaust gas certification expenses, customs duties, value-added tax, customs clearance expenses, registration expenses, etc.) (hereinafter “instant contract”), which is the equipment used for directly transporting, loading, or discharging containers on a wharf, and used for cargo management at the Incheon Customs Office located in the Incheon Port, upon delivery of the instant equipment from the Defendant on July 5, 2011.
Article 19 (Free Guarantee of Defects) of the Contract of this case provides, “The defendant shall guarantee the quality and performance of the plaintiff for two years or 4,000 hours (on a leading basis) and shall be liable to repair any natural straw trouble which is not due to the negligence on the part of the plaintiff.”
B. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff received a request from the Incheon Office of the Plaintiff to replace the equipment of the instant case with the rear-wheeled Marina, 2013. Around January 2013, the Plaintiff replaced the rear-wheeled Marina of the instant equipment into a hybrid, which is not a beer Mexico, using the previous equipment. The operating time of the instant equipment was 1,798 hours at the time of request for the replacement of the rear-wheeled Marina. 2013.
C. On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that noise was generated in the part of boom booming booming booming in the instant equipment. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff was inspected by an enterprise that entered into a maintenance contract with the Plaintiff, and on June 28, 2013, requested the Defendant to repair the equipment free of charge pursuant to the instant contract.
As a result of visiting the Incheon Customs Office on July 2, 2013 to check the equipment of this case, the Defendant confirmed the occurrence of noise from the equipment of this case, but did not find the cause of noise, and mobilized heavy equipment.