beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant Ori Capital Co., Ltd. is 15.5.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff called the Defendant Company’s representative number in order to purchase the Babro BWH/B-025X (hereinafter “instant boiler”) manufactured by Defendant Ox Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). The Defendant Company introduced Defendant B, a trade name “I,” engaging in cooling, heating machine sales and installation business, to the Plaintiff.
B. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B to purchase the boiler in KRW 30,000,000, installation cost, and KRW 8,000,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
C. When the boiler of this case 2014 fell into a winter, the boiler of this case was accumulated in the outdoor season, and the panty of the outdoor season was faced with the ice and the operation of the boiler was suspended.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s main claim 1) The boiler of this case did not properly operate the boiler, and the operation of the boiler was suspended by putting the ice in the outdoor air. Therefore, according to the refund provision stated in the product warranty certificate of this case, the Defendants are obliged to refund the boiler price to the Plaintiff, or to pay the amount equivalent to the price thereof to the Plaintiff, to the liability under the Product Liability Act due to the defect in the product, to the legal liability for the fair display and advertisement due to false or exaggerated advertisements, or to default on obligations. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the boiler of this case constitutes an error in the important part of the boiler, and thus, the instant sales contract was revoked and the instant boiler was purchased. 2) Since the instant boiler was erroneous, the Defendants installed the boiler of this case.