beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (i) On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the instant supply contract with the Defendant, setting the five forms “EXE (X-RAY) x-North Korea, and the Navy/Piracy” as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant equipment”) as KRW 547,672,000 (0.015%/day for liquidated damages) and supplied the instant equipment by December 20, 2012.
The instant equipment is equipment used in the Navy's explosive disposal team (EOD). X-ray shooting equipment, the key part of which is a X-ray for the safe handling of explosives, and is equipment used to screen screen pictures taken by X-ray.
Of the components of the instant equipment that the Plaintiff had delivered, XR-150 (the name of the model) the X-ray filmer (XR-150) is the product of a structural engineering company in the U.S.A. Alley, the consortiumer is the product of ELE Co., Ltd. (4) and the Korea Lenober Limited Co., Ltd. (1). The X-ray system (1) is the product of the U.S. Pappromor.
There were other components such as fluor, portable fluor (PDA), incidental equipment, etc.
Article 22(1) of the General Conditions for Goods Purchase Contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Goods Purchase Contract") included in the Goods Purchase Contract of this case shall be as shown in the attached Form.
(b) the decision of failure and joint meetings (i.e. January 2, 2013); and
1. The postponement of inspection on December 20, 2012: The Plaintiff was unable to supply the instant equipment until December 20, 2012, which was the delivery date, and the Plaintiff applied for technical inspection and examination (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “inspection”) with respect to the instant equipment on January 2, 2013. However, as the inspection was refused on the wind without attaching the certificate of the robot crop, ston, and portable DNA display, the following day by submitting the certificate of the scanner and portable DNA display on January 3, 2013, which was conducted by the prosecutor on January 15, 2013, but as the Plaintiff’s employee, A was properly equipped with the instant equipment.