logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.26 2014나45760
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The court of first instance dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendants and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim against the Plaintiff, and only the Plaintiff appealed, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the claim of the principal lawsuit.

2. The grounds for the entry of this case by the court in this case are as follows: (a) the “product development plan” of the first instance judgment No. 8, No. 5, and the “product development plan” of the second instance judgment No. 9, No. 4, and No. 10, No. 17, are as stated in the corresponding part of the first instance judgment; and (b) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[고쳐 쓰는 부분] ㈏ 하자 갑 제11, 12호증의 각 기재, 제1심 증인 I의 증언에 의하면, 피고 A가 원고에게 공급한 제품 2의 시제품에서는 이를 수회 가동할 경우 UV LED를 고정한 납땜이 떨어질 정도의 발열 문제가 발생하였던 사실, 이러한 발열 문제는 피고 A가 공급한 제품 2 시제품의 회로가 배터리와 UV LED를 직접 연결하는 방식으로 설계되었기 때문에 발생한 것이기도 한데, 이 문제는 LED Driver(정전압제어 IC)를 사용하는 방식으로 해결할 수 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances, the contract was automatically rescinded pursuant to Paragraph (8) of the second contract only on the ground that the above heat problem occurred in the product 2's prototype supplied by Defendant A to the Plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the respective statements in the basic facts, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence, Eul evidence No. 7 through 12, 20 through 22, 24 through

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff can lawfully rescind the contract on the grounds of the contractual nonperformance, which is attributable to Defendant A, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect in the two prototypes of the product supplied by Defendant A to the Plaintiff.

(1)

arrow