beta
Text
1. In relation to the production and installation of heat supply facilities by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the production of heat-supply equipment, for the design and pumps of the heat manufacturing among the installation works, for the production and supply of electric heating equipment, and for the production and supply of electric heating equipment.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff designed the heat tank and supplied the pumps and electrical heat to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s co-days of the electrical heating machine supplied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”) was a small loss, and the defect repair cost equivalent to KRW 42,460,000 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) was incurred.
C. On January 18, 2012, the Defendant claimed KRW 42,460,00 as the defect repair cost incurred from the instant accident to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee”), a defect warranty insurance company (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee”), and the Seoul Guarantee notified the Plaintiff on February 8, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident caused the Defendant’s defect in pipeline construction, and that there is no defect in the electrical heating machine itself, and thus, there is no liability for damages due to nonperformance. A.
In full view of the contents and images of Gap's evidence Nos. 9, 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including each number), the appraiser Eul's appraisal results, and the whole purport of the arguments as to the appraiser B of this court, the heat of this case designed and produced by the plaintiff can be acknowledged as the existence of structural defects due to design defects, and the fact that the accident of this case occurred.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is liable to the Defendant for damages arising from the instant accident.
The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the pipe of the defendant, but only the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, 11 through 13 are written.