1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted from January 3, 2009 to March 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the instant paint, the attachment of which was lowered, such as the removal of color explosion from the existing HK rent and the change of class hours, to the Defendant.

원고는 위와 같이 피고로부터 납품받은 부착성이 저하된 이 사건 도료를 도포한 엘리베이터 패널(이하 ‘원고 제품’이라 한다)을 제조하여 공사현장에 납품하였고, 원고 제품에 부착성 저하로 인하여 도막(塗膜) 물체의 표면에 칠한 도료의 얇은 층이 건조, 고화, 밀착되면서 연속적인 피막이 된 것 이 탈리(脫離)되는 하자가 발생하여 원고가 그 보수 비용으로 현재까지 합계 1,220,915,310원(2010년부터 2013년까지 보수비용 747,424,617원 2014년부터 현재까지 보수비용 473,490,693원)을 지출하는 손해가 발생하였다.

As above, the Defendant, despite the duty to deliver defective paints in accordance with the instant paint supply contract, has breached the duty to cause damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages, including KRW 1,220,915,310, and damages for delay.

Even if there is no problem as to the attachment of the instant paint, the instant paint is a defect in the luminous or blooming phenomenon, and since such a defect is one of the causes of escape, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damage corresponding to the part to which the said defect contributed.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is based on the premise that there was a defect in the Plaintiff’s product which is destroyed by the instant paint, and thus, whether there was a defect in the Plaintiff’s product due to the instant paint.