beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a domestic sales and service agency contract with the Korean company, and supplied the ga density measuring instrument to the Yongsan-gu Public Health Center affiliated with the Defendant on January 6, 2004 while selling the ga density measuring instrument of the US company (hereinafter “GE company”).
B. On December 201, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to repair the said alley density measuring instrument (hereinafter “the instant measuring instrument”); and (b) concluded a repair contract with the Plaintiff on December 21, 201, stipulating that the contract amount of KRW 13,456,00, and the delivery deadline shall be December 23, 201, with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the supply deadline as the date of December 23, 2011 (hereinafter “instant repair contract”).
C. The core parts of the Gab density measuring instrument consisting of X-ray (in person) and human sets, and the body body centered around the human body. The Plaintiff collectively refers to the human body and the nb and the nb, and called the “Pib”. The Plaintiff, while repairing the measuring instrument in accordance with the above repair contract, replaced the tubes of the measuring instrument in this case by attaching a seal directly imported from Arbs to the nba of the nba and replacing the nba of the measuring instrument.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant tubes”) D. D. the Plaintiff replaced as above.
On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a summary order of KRW 5 million from the Seoul Central District Court on July 30, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff forged the labels of GE company and sold them to the Defendant, etc. as if they were a new product after attaching them to the instant tubes; (b) forged the labels of GE company; and (c) sold them to the Defendant, etc. as if they were a new product.
E. Accordingly, Article 31 of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who illegally executes construction, such as using materials lower than standard specifications” (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”).