beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Appeal and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: Gap evidence added at the court of first instance, which is insufficient to admit the plaintiff’s assertion, and Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 10, which is insufficient to admit the plaintiff’s assertion, shall be rejected; the court of first instance shall revise “video No. 7,” “the result of verification by the court of first instance and the court of first instance” as “the result of verification by the court of first instance”; and this part of the reasoning of the judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this shall be cited
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the defect alleged by the Defendant constitutes an immediate discovery, and that the Defendant did not immediately send the notice to the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant discovered the defect during the examination process, the Defendant cannot claim against the Plaintiff for damages due to the defect pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act.
However, Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act is a provision applicable to the sale between merchants and cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to other contracts, such as a contract for work (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da38342, Jul. 14, 1995). As seen earlier, a contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is similar to a kind of contract, and it cannot be deemed as a sales contract, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a sales contract.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit.
The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal.