Article 69 of the Commercial Act shall require the buyer to inspect the object and to prove the fact of defect notification, which is a prerequisite for holding warranty against the object of sale under Article 69 of the Commercial Act.

Article 69 of the Commercial Act is clear that the buyer's inspection of the object of sale and the duty to notify the seller of the defect is a prerequisite to hold the seller liable for warranty against the object of sale and purchase. Thus, the buyer's inspection of the object of sale and the duty to notify the seller of the defect immediately at the time the buyer receives the object of the defect warranty. If there is any defect that can not be immediately discovered in the object of sale and purchase, the seller bears the burden of proving that the defect is discovered within six months and immediately notified.

Article 69 of the Commercial Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Maduk-hee

Daegu High Court Decision 89Na177, 184 decided July 24, 1990

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be reversed.

The case concerning this part shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 after the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the Plaintiff’s title, and the Plaintiff’s title thereafter)’s Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for the first time

The court below reasoned that the defendant's 300 millilis and agreed to manufacture and supply glass bottles on three occasions from August 1, 1986 to October 21, 198 and sold 20,02 glass bottles to the defendant. The defendant returned 13,000 glass bottles and 13,00 of the above 20,00 glass bottles supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the plaintiff on the ground that they were defective goods, and the reasons for the court below's finding that there were no errors in the law of 90,000 of the above 9, 1986, 70, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 9, 9, 9, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, since the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is between merchants, if the Defendant inspected whether there was a defect in glass disease at the time of receiving glass disease pursuant to Article 69 of the Commercial Act, and discovered the defect, then immediately notify the Plaintiff as the seller. However, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the defect. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant cannot be liable for damages caused by the defect in glass disease, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s allegation on the ground that there was no evidence to support that the Defendant received the above 5,00 glass disease and discovered the defect and did not immediately notify the Plaintiff of the defect.

However, Article 69 of the Commercial Act provides, "If a buyer has received an object, he shall inspect it without delay, and if any defect or shortage in quantity has occurred between merchants, he shall not claim termination of the contract, reduction of the price, or compensation for damages unless he/she has immediately sent notice to the seller. This shall also apply in cases where the buyer finds any defect which is not immediately discovered in the object of sale." This shall also apply in cases where the buyer finds it within six months." In cases of sale between merchants, it is clear that the buyer's inspection of the object of sale and the duty of notification of the defect is a prerequisite for holding the seller liable for warranty against the object of sale. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the buyer without delay inspected the object of sale and notified the seller of the defect without delay at the time of receipt of the object of the defect. If there is any defect which can not be immediately discovered in the object of sale, it shall be deemed that

Therefore, in this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the ground that the defendant's failure to perform the above duty of notifying the plaintiff can not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the buyer's duty of inspection of the object of the sale and the burden of proof as to the plaintiff's non-performance of the duty of notification of the defect, although the plaintiff's failure to perform the duty of notification of the defect could not be deemed to have been proved, if the plaintiff's failure to notify the plaintiff, without delay, after examining whether there was the above defect in the glass disease at the time of the plaintiff's receipt of the object of the counter-claim, or if such defect was not immediately discovered, the seller's notification cannot be deemed to have been sent to the plaintiff within 6 months. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the ground that the defendant's failure to perform the duty of notification of the defect was proved to have been proved to have been caused by the misapprehension of the buyer's duty of notification of the object of the counter-claim and it is obvious that the above error affected the judgment.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as to this part. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)