물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the alteration of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
At the bottom of the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the end of 4.4.:
The Plaintiff asserts that “the effect of Defendant’s rescission extends only to the complete portion, not to the entire supply contract of this case.”
According to Gap evidence No. 1-5, it can be acknowledged that the filtering of this case is a facility that functions to stabilize water quality by pressure and elimination of persistent organic substances and organic substances in the secondary treatment water which has undergone biological treatment.
Thus, the purpose of the supply contract of this case is also to achieve the function of water quality stability through the installation of the leisure season of this case, and if the above function is not realized, the contract is partially implemented.
Even if the purpose of the contract can not be achieved at all, it is judged that the above contract is not a performance that can be divided in quantity, but a single implementation purpose is to achieve the water quality stability function.
However, as a result of the Plaintiff’s continuous discovery of defects in the instant leisure season, even though the Defendant’s Intervenor had to extend and supplement the delivery period over several times for about one year, it was confirmed that the defects continued. Accordingly, even though the Defendant’s Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that “the Defendant’s Intervenor will conduct water quality testing and inspection by a certified body,” the Defendant’s Intervenor did not comply with the Plaintiff’s failure to comply therewith. As a result, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s water quality inspection on the instant leisure season failed to meet water quality conditions, and the Defendant cancelled the instant supply contract and uses the instant leisure machine.