A Stock Company

Attorney Noh Jeong-sik, Justice Park Young-chul, Justice Kang Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Barun (LLC)

Attorney Mag-tae, Counsel for transmission materials

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Southern Dong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the assertion that the Defendant has the right to re-supply pursuant to Article 9 of the instant supply contract

The lower court determined that, on the premise that the Plaintiff did not bear any risk on the non-sale products, the provision on the return of goods in Article 9 of the instant supply contract was established, and the provision on the "re-supply of goods in Article 9 of the instant supply contract" cannot be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiff has to have agreed on the details of the goods, their size, etc. at the time of re-supply, and that the returned goods, which were returned to the effect that they

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

B. As to the allegation that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff again pursuant to Article 9 of the instant supply contract, and that the instant supply contract was not terminated by the conclusion of the instant sale contract.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s storage of returned goods into D is difficult to view them as re-supply pursuant to Article 9 of the instant supply contract, and that the instant supply contract was terminated as the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, limitation of liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or fairness is recognized as to liability for damages caused by nonperformance or tort, and where seeking performance of the original performance pursuant to the content of the obligation, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da53742, Apr. 7, 200; 99Da48801, Feb. 9, 2001).

The Plaintiff’s primary claim is seeking the payment of the price for the goods returned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, which constitutes a claim for the payment of the price for return pursuant to Article 9 of the supply contract of this case where the Plaintiff seeks the performance of the original payment according to the substance of the obligation. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, comparative negligence or limitation of liability should not be applied.

Nevertheless, on the erroneous premise that the limitation of liability is possible for the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the lower court limited the Defendant’s liability to 60% on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on comparative negligence or limitation of liability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young