Cases of denying liability for warranty against a contractor's exporter;

Around the time when a contractor receives a contract for the manufacture of a product from an exporter, he/she shall prepare three punishments for the product to the exporter, present them to the exporter, undergo an examination on the level of the manufacturing technology. After that, he/she re-explosives the subsidiary materials to be used for the product, and then manufactures the product by using them, upon the exporter's request, after being notified by the exporter that the subsidiary materials are smelled from the subsidiary materials, etc., he/she manufactured the product. After that, the rest of the product was manufactured with the consent of the exporter from time to time by seeking to be different from the above subsidiary materials at the exporter's request. In the manufacture of the product, if the exporter's employee has been supervised from time to time by the exporter, it cannot be acknowledged that the exporter and the processor were aware of the fact that the subsidiary materials were smelled, even if the malodor was produced from the products manufactured and supplied by the exporter, the process of concluding the processing contract between the exporter and the processor, the content of the manufacturing process of the products by the contractor, etc.

Articles 398, 667, and 669 of the Civil Act

Boyang Co., Ltd.

Hansung Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court (84Gahap2429) in the first instance trial

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the plaintiffs of the first and second instances.

3. On the basis of an application for the return of provisional payments, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant an amount of 21,081,827 won and an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from June 13, 1986 to the date of full payment.

4. The defendant's remaining motion to return the provisional payment is dismissed.

5. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 34,452,726 won and the amount of 6% per annum from June 12, 1983 to the date of service of the complaint, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.

It is as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Decree.

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant an amount equivalent to 21,081,827 won and an amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the date of the judgment of the court of the first instance to the date of full payment, and a judgment of provisional execution.

On October 19, 1982, the plaintiff entered into a so-called processing contract with the above importing company for the manufacture of textile products. On October 10, 1982, the plaintiff entered into an export contract with the non-party importing company (hereinafter referred to as non-party importing company) with the non-party trading company in Australia with the non-party trading company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party trading company") for the amount of 4,400 square meters per man's 18.50 U.S. dollars per punishment and the total amount of 81,400 U.S. dollars and to load up to April 13, 1983 with the non-party importing company for the purpose of implementing the above export contract, and the plaintiff entered into a so-called processing contract for the manufacture of the above products with the defendant on April 10, 1983, with the non-party trading company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party importing company") to supply all the products to the plaintiff's products, but the plaintiff must use the products with the total amount of 300.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sent samples to the non-party import company. The non-party import company notified the non-party 1 that the non-party 4 products were malodored in the 6th century, and the defendant knew it to the defendant. However, the defendant agreed to use laundry and deliver them after removing odor at almost the completed stage. The plaintiff received 1,14 punishment as of April 1, 1983, the non-party import company, which received 1,14 punishment, supplied the non-party 6 products to its trading company, but still did not sell the products and returned the whole quantity of the products to the non-party 6 products. The plaintiff's non-party 6 products did not temporarily laundry due to the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6 products.

As to this, the defendant did not cause malodor in his product, but at the time, the non-party import company refused to import the textile product at the originally agreed price and sent the telespath like the plaintiff's head as the main room in order to lower the price. Even if it is acknowledged that such malodor was generated in the domestic product, the defendant's use of Masacheon used by the defendant provided the plaintiff as its sample, and the plaintiff's employee supervised the manufacturing of the product. Thus, as long as the defendant completed the product and delivered the whole quantity to the plaintiff and received the inspection by the plaintiff, the defendant is not liable for warranty due to the malodor of the product.

First, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to find that the Plaintiff had been liable for damages due to the Plaintiff’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s products.

In addition, even if such facts are acknowledged, if the defendant collected the whole purport of oral argument from testimony of the party witness Shocheon, Kim Young-young, and the new witness at the original trial, it is difficult for the defendant to recognize that the defendant's employee from time to time supervised the plaintiff's production of the product with his/her production technology level, and thereafter, he/she sent a shotcheon, which is a subsidiary material to be used for the product in the future separately from the plaintiff, to the plaintiff, and then manufactured the product using it after obtaining the plaintiff's permission. However, at the time of the manufacture of approximately 3,00 product, he/she sold the product at the plaintiff's request, after receiving a notice from the plaintiff that the product was shotcheon-cheon at the time of the manufacture, and then delivered the product to the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff. In light of the facts that the plaintiff's employee did not know about the fact that he/she manufactured the product from time to time with the plaintiff's consent in manufacturing the remaining product, and in light of the circumstances that the plaintiff and the defendant's witness and the defendant's new witness testimony.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the defect of the instant product since it agreed or settled to the Plaintiff on June 24, 1983. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages. Thus, if the Defendant collected the entire purport of the pleadings from the testimony of the party witness Kang Jae-gu in the front, the evidence No. 8 in the front was prepared by the Defendant to obtain the certificate of acceptance after full payment of the products to the Plaintiff, and the content of the above cannot be deemed as the purport of recognizing the Defendant’s liability and paying damages to the Plaintiff as stated in the above. The evidence No. 13 in the evidence No. 8 and No. 13 (Withdrawal) merely withdraw the application for auction filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion on the above facts, and it is not accepted as there is no evidence other than the witness’s testimony that was rejected as evidence to acknowledge the facts alleged otherwise.

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is clearly justified because it is no longer necessary to examine the plaintiff's claim of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below should be dismissed because it is unfair since the court below accepted part of the plaintiff's claim with a different conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against this is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal against this part of the judgment below is dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part of the judgment below shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall

Then, if the defendant's application for the return of provisional payments was collected from the statement No. 7, which does not dispute the establishment, the defendant was found to have paid 21,081,827 won to the plaintiff on Nov. 4, 1985 after the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered in favor of the court of first instance on Nov. 4, 1985. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the legal interest rate of the Civil Act, from Jun. 13, 1986 to the date of the return (the defendant sought the payment of interest at the rate of 25% per annum, but Article 3 of the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is not applicable to the case of the application for the return of provisional payments).

Therefore, the Defendant’s application for the return of the provisional payment of this case is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the application is unfair and dismissed, and the provisional execution declaration is attached to the cited part.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)