beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation about this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following: 4, 16 to 5, 16, 7, 8 through 11, and 7, 20 through 9, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4
2. Parts 4, 16, 5, and 16 of the part 4, 16, 5, 5, and 16, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant supplied 300 square meters of the damaged portion to others.
Accordingly, on May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased and used substitute days equivalent to KRW 13,200,000 from rocketing Engines Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “rocketing Engines”).
In addition, the plaintiff paid 600,000 won as personnel expenses in confirming the quantity of other damaged days.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 13,800,000,000,000 for the purchase cost and personnel expenses of the substitute for the foregoing nonperformance of obligation.
2) In full view of the written statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of the witness Eul of the party concerned, the judgment of the court below is acknowledged that part of the other days supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff by negligence in the transportation and storage of other days was destroyed, and the plaintiff purchased 13,20,000,000 won as of May 10, 2010 to replace the destroyed other days.
In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s remaining claims on the other day were already extinguished by offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim for liquidated damages and all the goods prices, including other days damaged.
According to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 13,200,000, which is the purchase cost of alternative day due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.
Therefore, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.