손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) which is a corporation operating computer manufacturing and wholesale and retail business, received 99 orders from the Plaintiff, a corporation operating information and electronic industrial materials, including office PC and monitors, from June 27, 2013 to November 20, 2015, and supplied them to the Plaintiff. At the time, Defendant C was the representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant D served as the chief director of the Defendant Company.
B. As part of the above order, the Defendant Company attached E’s electronic key (COA) to the PC for business purposes, stating that “the supplier shall confirm the accurate information on the origin of all goods (including raw materials) to the buyer in writing, and guarantee that the information on the origin provided is not different from the fact. The supplier shall compensate for all damages suffered by the buyer due to the provision of false information on origin.”
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant purchase contract” in this case.
On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff provided information on 633 products, such as the COA image, Produt Ky, and OS 233 products of GOS Pro rata, to Nonparty F Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was asked from Nonparty Company 633 products to be 440 products, 171 products, 171 products, 22 products, accurate produt Key, and refined products. On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 106,480,000 won (including value-added tax) from Nonparty F Bank. < Amended by Act No. 1487, Nov. 10, 2016>
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the cause of the claim is that the defendant company attached forged COA and sold the computer to the plaintiff, and the defendant company breached the duty of delivery of the object under the purchase contract of this case, and performs the computer program work.