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. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant added or emphasized to the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that he completed the inspection approval for the gold punishment produced by the defendant F, and the defendant produced a part of the gold products accordingly.
Ultimately, even if there is no defect in a monetary sentence, the Plaintiff refused to pay the price upon requesting the Defendant to produce an individual monetary sentence different from the content of the original contract.
B. In light of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 16, 35, 45, 46 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 8, it is determined that the gold punishment produced by the defendant under each of the contracts of this case did not meet the conditions under each of the above contracts despite the defendant's remuneration over several times, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse it.
① Even after the expiration of the manufacturing completion period stipulated in each contract of this case, the Plaintiff demanded the correction of the prototype produced by the Defendant in the form of gold, and in fact, it is determined that there was any defect, such as refladation or strike, in fact, in the case of the prototype produced by the Defendant.
② According to each of the instant contracts, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder is premised on the premise that the gold-type produced by the Defendant or the products produced by such gold-type product passed the quality inspection of the Plaintiff. However, in light of the fact that the instant three contracts were concluded with the same content, the instant three contracts are deemed to have been concluded under the same condition.