logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.05.16 2012다72582
매매대금반환 등
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim for full goods payment against Defendant Copi global corporation

A. According to Articles 581(1) and (2), 580(1), and 575(1) of the Civil Act, in cases where the subject matter of the sale was designated as a kind, and thereafter there is any defect in the specified subject matter, the buyer may rescind the contract when the objective of the contract is not achieved due to such defect, and if the defect does not reach the extent that the objective of the contract cannot be achieved due to such defect, the buyer may claim damages. Moreover, the buyer shall have the right to claim a defective article instead of rescinding the contract or claiming damages (hereinafter “right to claim for payment in full”).

However, the provisions on the liability for warranty under the Civil Act are prepared on the basis of the principle of fairness, which is the guiding ideology of the Civil Act, to maintain a provisional relationship between the payment by a cost bilateral contract called a sale and the consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da23920, Jun. 30, 1995). In a case where a purchaser’s right to claim a full payment in the type of sale is acknowledged without limiting the buyer’s right to claim a full payment, the seller may rather be subject to excessive disadvantage

Therefore, while there is no particular obstacle in accomplishing the purpose of the contract even by means of repair due to minor defects in the object of sale, if the seller bears the duty of payment of the defective object, it would be reasonable to restrict the exercise of the right to claim payment of the defective object in cases where the performance of the duty of payment of the defective object goes against the principle of fairness, such as the case where the seller incurs excessive

And this buyer's right to claim full payment.

arrow