손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the term “passer” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “2. Additional Judgment” under the following, shall be cited as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant truck from Defendant D, taking account of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B and Defendant C are liable for damages due to the breach of duty of disclosure under Article 25-3(3) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, or that the liability for warranty under the Civil Act exists against Defendant D.
B. At the time of conclusion of the sales contract for the instant truck, the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive a performance condition inspection record (see Article 25-3(3) of the Construction Machinery Management Act) stating whether to register the seizure and mortgage of the instant truck from Defendant B or C, and the structure, specification, performance, etc. thereof, is not obvious dispute between the parties.
However, as seen earlier, the certificate of the transfer of construction machinery concerning the instant truck states, “(Article 3) transferee shall not be held liable to the transferor for any reason such as malfunction or malfunction of the construction machinery after the repair of the construction machinery,” and “(special agreement) vehicles enter into a sales contract after the transferee directly checks the performance of the vehicle himself/herself, checking the malfunction or malfunction of the vehicle after the trial run, and ascertaining the degree of the deterioration or malfunction of the vehicle, etc., and therefore, the transferee shall be held liable to all the assignee.”
Furthermore, according to the statement of Gap evidence 2 and witness I and Q of the first instance trial, the plaintiff concluded the above sales contract after the trial operation and inspection of the truck of this case through I and accepted the truck of this case.
Meanwhile, Article 7 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Machinery Management Act is applicable.