The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Changwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to judgment.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, recognized that the contract of this case was a contract under which the defendant would supply at least 1,00 finished shower products to the plaintiff with the production of shower products in addition to the production of shower products, and then the contract of this case was concluded to be a contract under which the plaintiff would supply at least 1,00 completed shower products to the plaintiff. The court below determined that the goods of shower products produced by the defendant through the gold-type produced by the defendant were placed on the outside surface or screen-type, the end after the withdrawal is changed, and the shape of the shower products is inferior due to the alteration, and the accuracy of the size of the shower products after the withdrawal is not good, and therefore, the normal distribution of the goods

However, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the defect repair of the shower product as above is the grounds for revocation of the agreement under Article 11 of the contract of this case or the legal grounds for non-performance of obligation, the lower court requested the Defendant to re-repair the defect repair after the Plaintiff was supplied with shower sample products.

No evidence exists to deem that there was an attempt to consult with the Defendant to determine the time of delivery of the final product, and the Plaintiff appears to have brought the instant lawsuit by unilaterally judging that the defect in the shower product is impossible to modify the defect, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that the grounds for cancellation of the agreement stipulated in Article 11 of the instant contract, namely, “where the Defendant violated the matters to be observed in the instant contract,” or “where it is deemed that the maintenance of the contract is difficult due to the lack of capacity of the Defendant,” or that it falls under the legal grounds for cancellation

However, according to the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff was supplied by the defendant.