[1] The legal nature of the crop supply contract and the applicable law thereto

[2] The meaning of "delivery of objects," which is the time of payment of remuneration and the requirement of payment of remuneration in a production supply contract

[3] Where the parties to a contract for the supply of production concludes an agreement that "if the contractor passes an inspection of the object supplied by the contractor, the contractor shall pay the contractor the remuneration" on the date of payment of remuneration, whether the agreement constitutes a conditional agreement or purely conditional agreement (negative)

[4] The matters to be asserted and proved when the contractor of the production supply contract claims the payment of remuneration

[1] The so-called production supply contract under which one of the parties agrees to supply goods made of his own use of his own materials according to the order of the other party and the other party shall pay the price for the manufacture. Since the nature of the contract exists in terms of the sale and purchase and the nature of the contract is the substitution of goods in terms of the supply and sale, the applicable law applies to the sale and purchase of the goods to be manufactured and supplied under the contract, but if the goods are the substitute goods for the purpose of meeting the demand of a specific client, the supply of the goods and the manufacture are made with the main purpose of the contract.

[2] In principle, the contractor shall pay remuneration to the contractor simultaneously with the delivery of the completed object unless there is a special agreement or custom between the parties on the date of payment of remuneration in the production supply contract. The delivery of the object does not mean a simple transfer of possession of the completed object, but it includes the delivery of the object to the contractor by explicitly or implicitly viewing that the object was completed in accordance with the contents of the contract after the inspection of the object.

[3] As to the payment date of remuneration, the agreement that "if the contractor has passed an inspection of the object supplied by the contractor, the contractor shall pay the contractor the remuneration." merely confirms the contractor's duty of delivery of the object of the contract which is concurrent with the contractor's duty of payment of remuneration to the contractor, it does not correspond to the condition that the legal act takes effect in the future dependent on the gender of an uncertain fact in the future, and even if it falls under the condition, the passing of the inspection is objectively determined according to whether the object was produced in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract without depending on the unilateral intent of the contractor, and thus does not fall under the pure conditions.

[4] The burden of asserting and proving the completion of the work in a contract for work is against the contractor who claims the payment of remuneration for the result of the work, and in order to have the completion of the work in the contract for manufacturing, it is insufficient to say that the contract for manufacturing is completed once the last stage of the original scheduled work is completed, and the main structure of the object must be constructed as agreed upon and have the performance generally required by social norms. Thus, the contractor who claims the payment of remuneration for manufacturing shall not only claim and prove that the main structure of the object has completed the last process stipulated in the contract for manufacturing the object, but also that the main structure of the object has the performance generally required by social norms.

[1] Articles 563 and 664 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 664 and 665 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 103, 147, and 665 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 664 and 665 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da2446 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1380), Supreme Court Decision 88Da31866 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 859), Supreme Court Decision 94Da42976 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2317) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2684, 26691 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 73)

1. The term “the term” means “the term” or “the term” means “the term” or “the term.

Handong Construction Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na32515 delivered on March 23, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The so-called production supply contract, which stipulates that one of the parties shall supply goods made of his own use of his own materials according to the order of the other party and the other party shall pay the price for the goods, has the nature of the contract in terms of production and sale and the nature of the contract. Thus, the applicable law applies to the case where the goods to be manufactured and supplied under the contract are substituted by the goods to meet the demand of a specific client. However, if the goods are the ancillary goods to meet the demand of a specific client, the supply of the goods and the manufacture have the nature of the contract as the main purpose of the contract (Supreme Court Decision 94Da42976 delivered on June 28, 196). Meanwhile, in the case of the production supply contract, the order owner shall pay the contractor the price for the goods completed at the same time unless there is a special agreement or custom between the parties with regard to the time of the payment of the goods in question, and in this case, the delivery of the goods shall not merely refer to the transfer of the goods completed, but shall be deemed to include the object explicitly or explicitly as the contents of the contract.

Therefore, the agreement between the parties to a contract for the production supply that "if the contractor has passed an examination of the object supplied by the contractor, the contractor shall pay the contractor the remuneration." It is merely a confirmation of the contractor's duty of delivery of the object as natural by virtue of the contractor's duty of payment of remuneration to the contractor. In order to limit the general effect of the legal act, the validity of the legal act does not fall under the condition that the legal act depends on the nature of uncertainty in the future, and even if it falls under the condition, the passing of the inspection is objectively determined according to whether the object was produced according to the terms and conditions of the contract without depending on the unilateral will of the contractor. Thus, it does not fall under pure conditions.

In addition, the burden of assertion and proof regarding the completion of work in a contract for work is against the contractor seeking payment of remuneration for the result of work (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684, 26691, Nov. 22, 1994). In order to have the completion of the work in a contract for the supply of production, the fact that the contract for the supply of production ends even the last scheduled process is insufficient, and the main structure of the object is constructed as agreed upon and must have the performance generally required by social norms. Whether the last process in individual cases has been completed must be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract for the supply of production of the object and the principle of trust and good faith, and as such, the contractor claiming payment of remuneration for the production of the object has to assert and prove not only that the last process prescribed in the contract for the production of the object has been completed, but also that the main structure has the performance generally required by social norms as agreed upon.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a contract for manufacture and installation of the main body of this case, which constitutes a production supply contract, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that "when manufacturing, installing, or trial operation is completed, the plaintiff shall submit a completion report without delay and undergo an inspection by the defendant, and when the plaintiff passes the inspection and claims for payment in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the defendant shall pay the price after taking over the machinery." As above, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to directly manufacture the main body of this case, which is linked to the main body of this case, and the heating equipment and pipes connected to the main body of this case after the completion of the production of the plastic pressure plant, which were manufactured by the defendant after the completion of the production of the main body of this case, the plaintiff's treatment capacity was considerably less than that planned, and the defendant's rejection of repair and alteration of the main body of this case's equipment manufactured by the defendant through consultation with the plaintiff and the defendant's rejection of repair and alteration of the main body of this case's equipment.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, although the court below did not explicitly decide whether the body of sexual pressure withdrawal produced by the plaintiff has the function that can be generally expected under the terms of the contract and has been manufactured in accordance with the substance of the contract, it can be deemed that the judgment that the defendant rejected the part produced by the plaintiff and that it cannot be deemed that the part of the body of sexual pressure withdrawal produced by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject the plaintiff's claim for the payment of remuneration for such reasons. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effects of pure water conditions, the burden of proof as to the completion of the work in the contract, or by mismisunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)