beta
Text
1. As to Defendant Clean Machinery Co., Ltd., the amounting to KRW 22,950,000 for the Plaintiff and the amount pertaining thereto from July 22, 2016 to December 12, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On June 13, 2015, Defendant Clean Machinery entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “contract for the supply of goods”) with KRW 340,00,000, which is produced at KRW 17,000, a product automation manufacturer (hereinafter “each of the instant machinery”) on the Plaintiff.
Defendant Clean Machinery completed the manufacture and installation of each of the instant machines around August 2015.
At the time when several months have elapsed since the Plaintiff was supplied with each of the instant machines from Defendant 1’s air transmission machines, there was an accident that the Plaintiff ceased to operate 6 costs of each of the instant machines.
【The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties as to the claim for the Defendant’s air transmission machines for the entire purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in the Evidence A Nos. 1 through 5 (including all of the numbers) was attached to used goods, other than all of the parts of the instant machines, as agreed upon at the time of the instant goods supply contract. The occurrence of an accident in which the operation of the machinery was discontinued due to a malfunction due to the technical defect of the instant accelerator.
Therefore, Defendant Clean Machinery should compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 14,834,00, labor cost of KRW 12,900,000 arising from the cost of purchasing stenographic parts, labor cost of KRW 12,90,000, and replacement personnel cost of KRW 57,475,00 arising from the failure of the machinery and KRW 56,10,00,000, expected to be required to replace the accelerator with the new equipment.
The attachment of a secondhand machine to each of the instant machines claiming the Defendant’s Cheongwa Machinery is in accordance with an agreement with the Plaintiff, and there is no other functional defect in the instant cooling machine, and the occurrence of the breakdown in some of the instant machines is due to the Plaintiff’s mistake in its use.
It is intended to use a high speed reductioner for liability for damages.