Of the part of the judgment of the court below as to the claim of the main claim, it is about the original amount of Shaf and its delay damages.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. (1) According to Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act as to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), when the buyer receives the subject matter in a transaction between merchants, the buyer shall inspect it without delay, and when any defect or shortage is discovered, the buyer shall not claim cancellation of the contract, reduction of the price, or damages unless he/she immediately notifies the seller.

Here, the term "the time of receipt of an object" means the time when the object is placed under the real possession of the buyer and can be confirmed as to whether the object is defective or not.

(2) The lower court determined that Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act cannot be asserted on the ground that the Plaintiff could not claim the application of Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act, on the following grounds: (a) as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the set-off price against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was insufficient in quantity after six months from the receipt of the set-off of the show-line purchased from the Plaintiff; (b) but it cannot be deemed that there was a situation in which the Defendant received and inspected the remainder of the show-line, other than the show-line 27,235, which was found to have received by the Defendant in accordance with the Defendant’s order, on the ground that it was not proven that the Plaintiff received the show-line 27,235, which was supplied by the Defendant.

(3) However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the plaintiff agreed to deliver the goods ordered by the defendant to the place designated by the defendant within the payment period specified in the order, and ordered the plaintiff to the plaintiff 27,880 Save group 27,880 Save group. The plaintiff delivered the Save group to the defendant, and sent the Salve group 27,356 Save group 2,00 Save group 27,356 Save group, and the defendant received 18,762 Save group among them.