2012 Ghana 5086607 Damage, Claim

Korea

Biosastteclosion Co., Ltd.

September 6, 2013

October 11, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 46,31,700 won with 20% interest per annum from August 9, 2012 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. For the safe preservation of important records, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on November 23, 2010 with respect to the purchase of 37,788,000 won for solid disinfection chemicals (hereinafter “instant disinfection chemicals”) between the Defendant, who is a supplier of records disinfection chemicals, and the Defendant, who was a supplier of records disinfection chemicals, and received the supply of the instant disinfection chemicals from the Defendant around December 27, 2010.

B. At the time of the contract of this case, the plaintiff specified the purpose, ingredients, disinfection effects, etc. of paper disinfection chemicals in accordance with the specifications and specifications of materials for disinfection treatment chemicals (hereinafter referred to as "the specifications of this case") and demanded to submit the test report, etc. issued by an authorized testing institution, such as the Korea Institute of Chemical Convergence and Testing (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Institute of Chemical Convergence") on disinfection effects, etc.

(a) The purpose of medicine: Records and relics, etc. for disinfection and treatment;

(2) Chemical ingredients: The medicine ingredients shall be harmful to the human body, and there must be no environmental pollution: (3) the disinfection effect of microorganisms (patriarch and mycous) 100% death and fungus oryza L.) 100% death after disinfection; (5) Fungus disinfection treatment; and (3) there must be no movement after 2 hours.

(d) the stability of disinfection chemicals: Not creating a heatation of species, such as internal strength, seal strength, heat strength, white intensity, pH, etc. as a result of the test of physical properties change of records;

(5) Disinfection method: A medicine must not have a sediment and aggressional phenomenon caused by direct contact with records;

(6) Other: the operation of the equipment must not be defective due to the organic operation of the equipment owned by the National Archives.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff each test report on the issuance of the Korea TTR and the Korea Agricultural Research Institute of the instant disinfection medicine (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant test report”), and there were the results of the test, such as “A. nigr's Rogth', Gagr's Rogth', Gagr's nigr's 9.9% or more of 99.9% of the above test report (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant test report”).

D. However, in order to verify whether the above disinfection medication was effective like the Defendant’s test report, the Plaintiff requested KTR to examine the effect of disinfection of the instant disinfection medication at the expense of KRW 8,543,700 on December 201, and according to the KTR’s test report (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s test report”) upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff used 4 of the instant disinfection medication to disinfect 8 hours records, and “Sitopus hiza L. 3% syza L. 3% syza, A. ngr 68.6% syza 6% sza, and the result of the 20-hour disinfection of records using 4 of the instant disinfection medication, and the result of the 30-hour disinfection of each of the instant disinfection medication results using the 10-hour 20-hour sulphus sulphus 57% sulgicide,” Defendant 85% 8.5% s sulic 2.

E. As above, the Defendant’s test report on the instant disinfection medication and the Plaintiff’s test report were different, with respect to the method of disinfection effect test on the instant disinfection medication, the Defendant’s test report included only a sample of the instant disinfection medication while not carrying the records inside the disinfection equipment and test the disinfection effect of the instant disinfection medicine. However, the Plaintiff’s test report was due to the fact that the records were loaded in the disinfection equipment and the disinfection effect of the instant disinfection medicine was tested.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 to 4, Gap evidence 7-1 to 3, Gap evidence 10, Gap witness's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff specified the disinfection effect, etc. of the disinfection medicine through the instant specifications, and the Defendant guaranteed that the instant disinfection medicine satisfies the disinfection effect required by the Plaintiff while submitting the Defendant’s test report to the Plaintiff. However, the effect of the disinfection medicine in question was confirmed to not reach the level required by the Plaintiff. As the instant disinfection medicine is deemed defective, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for defects due to the nonperformance of the obligation.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The results of the Defendant’s examination report and the Plaintiff’s examination report are different from those of the methods of the disinfection effect test of the instant disinfection medication. This is due to the fact that whether records are loaded or recorded, which affected the result of the disinfection medication test. The Plaintiff’s examination report that tested the disinfection effect of the instant disinfection medication in a state where records are loaded, may not be deemed an appropriate test method because the results vary depending on the form, quality, and degree of pollution of records. Thus, the Plaintiff’s examination report alone cannot be deemed as defective in the instant disinfection medicine.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff purchased the instant disinfection chemicals for disinfection of records, ② the Plaintiff specified and demanded the use, ingredients, disinfection effects, etc. of the instant disinfection chemicals through the instant specifications while entering into the instant contract. The main contents, etc. of the instant disinfection chemicals appear to have the effect of disinfection on the records themselves. ③ At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff demanded submission of a certificate, etc. proving the effect of disinfection of medicine. The Defendant submitted the Defendant’s test report stating 9.9% or 100% disease and 10% disease, and the effect of disinfection for the purpose of purchasing the instant disinfection chemicals for records. In light of the above facts, it seems probable that the Plaintiff, as a matter of course, had trusted the effect of disinfection of the instant disinfection chemicals under the condition that it would not have the effect of disinfection of the instant disinfection chemicals under the condition that it would not have the effect of disinfection of the instant disinfection chemicals under the condition that it would not have the effect of disinfection of the instant disinfection chemicals.

B. Furthermore, as to the specific scope of compensation for damages, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, such as health room, i.e., breeding at a rapid speed where mycoi, etc. occurs on the surface of the paper of records, damaging the surface of materials, and increasing damage by spreading microorganisms. Therefore, in order to prevent this in advance, 100% of shock and germs through disinfection treatment is required to remove biological factors, such as insect insects and myi, before being kept in the library before being kept in the records. Thus, if the relevant disinfection chemical does not have 100% germs effect, the records that it was conducted by the relevant disinfection chemical should be disinfected again. In order to confirm the effect of disinfection of the disinfection chemical, it is reasonable to view that the results can be verified only through a specialized test, including the purchase cost of the instant disinfection chemical, 37,78,000 won, and inspection 3085,705,705, etc., for the purpose of checking the effects of disinfection chemical in this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total of 46,31,700 won for damages (37,788,000 won for purchasing the instant disinfection medication + expenses of 8,543,700 won for requesting inspection of disinfection effects) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 9, 2012 to the date of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Min Young-young