1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows. The plaintiff’s argument in this court is added to the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance court, and the corresponding part of the judgment in the first instance is identical to that of the judgment in the first instance except for modification as stated in the following paragraph 3. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the defect of the instant posters, that is, the defect of the instant posters raised by the Defendant, that is, the problem that the location of the carculate is close to tin and that prior to the labing of the carculate, which the Defendant raised, is not a problem arising from the use of tinbs that do not comply with the standards, unlike those stipulated in the instant supply contract, by the Defendant’s defect.

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in Gap evidence 7, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the overall purport of pleadings, the issue that the location of the master shot light is merely a problem arising from the structural defect in the master itself, but cannot be seen as a problem arising from the use of the defendant's improper tin. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the master shot light itself does not have any defect falling under the reason for cancelling the contract is without merit.

① Article 5 subparag. 2 of the instant supply contract provides that “The posters supplied shall use the plate and tin as designated by the Plaintiff,” and that type of “Aibibibibibibibibibibibiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiation and tin.” However, as asserted by the Plaintiff, the parts of the tiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii) should not be used.

② Around November 2017, the Defendant raised an issue regarding the Plaintiff’s phenomenon that the bombs and tins of posters are cut off, and the Plaintiff’s employee is installed in the Defendant’s restaurant.