logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2017나2001019
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance

However, we add the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff made in this court as follows.

2. Additional determination

A. At the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to supply machinery that can put up a 1m degree of a dynas to the thyth place, and the Defendant promised to supply the machinery. The machinery of this case, which the Defendant actually supplied to the Plaintiff, did not have the above-mentioned performance.

(b) is the same purport as the argument in the first instance court.

Judgment

1) In a case where machinery supplied to a buyer has ordinary quality and performance, it can be acknowledged that there is a defect because the machinery does not have the quality or performance required by the working environment or condition. In order for the buyer to be recognized that there is a defect, the buyer must be acknowledged that the seller explicitly or implicitly guaranteed and supplied the fact that it is a product with such quality and performance when explaining the working environment or condition to be used by the seller and demanding the supply of the product with the quality or performance required by the environment or situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da3054, 30561, Oct. 27, 200; 200Da17834, Apr. 12, 200) and the circumstances of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4~5-17834, Apr. 12, 200) and evidence revealed in the whole arguments as well as the following.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The size and performance of a pulverization machine shall be determined.

arrow