1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, except for the following addition.

2. The Defendant asserts that imposing various obligations based on Article 12 of the General Conditions of the Goods Purchase Contract should be limited to material ‘the materials directly purchased and input by the contractor (the Defendant) as stipulated in Article 24 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract. Thus, as in this case, it is unreasonable to impose liability for fulfilling the obligations under Article 12 of the General Conditions even in the case where the Plaintiff’s variable selection and advance payment products were made and the Defendant was entirely unable to participate.

The general condition of the purchase contract provides that ① Article 12 of the General condition of the purchase contract does not restrict the subject of the contract to maintain the quality guarantee program and to conduct the test and inspection of the goods under the contract; ② Article 24 of the General condition of the construction contract provides the related requirements, procedures, etc. on the premise that it is possible to change the method of supply and demand of the required materials, and it is not a provision to exempt the defendant from liability for damages or restrict the scope of liability; ③ Article 35(1) of the General condition of the purchase contract provides that the subject of liability shall be “the party to the contract, the subcontractor or the subcontractor, or the person who is under his supervision or supervision,” and Article 12 of the above general condition provides that the subject of the purchase contract shall guarantee the quality of the parts supplied by the other party to the contract. Accordingly, the defendant, who is the party to the contract of the supply contract of this case, may not be exempted from liability under the above provision merely because it did not actually participate in the supply process, even if the defendant is selected.