The legality of the cancellation of the sales contract without immediately notifying any defects in the supplied goods;

Even if most of the supplied fertilizers are defective goods which may be damaged at the time of upstream due to a fluority, they shall not be inspected without delay at the time of receipt of the object, and if any defect is discovered, if the seller fails to immediately notify the fact to the seller, the sales contract may not be rescinded for the reason of the defect.

Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Act

Engine Business Corporation

Defendant corporation

Daegu District Court of the first instance (85 Gohap212, decided 85 Gohap212)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 58,960,00 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from May 1, 1985 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff claims for the payment of the same amount and claims for the amount of promissory notes in the first place while seeking the payment of the same amount).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff is a company that runs the business of processing and selling synthetic resin, and the defendant runs the business of producing and selling fertilizers. On December 1, 1984, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the defendant to deliver 25 kilograms of fertilizers of 400,000 to the defendant in 58,960,000 won, and pursuant to the above contract, the plaintiff supplied the above fertilizer to the defendant during the period from December 16 to December 31 of the same year, and on January 16, 1985, there is no dispute between the parties that received one promissory note of 58,960,000 won at the face value of the defendant's issuance and payment, and the one promissory note of 25 kilograms of the Industrial Bank of Korea at the place of payment, and the one promissory note issued at the port of the Industrial Bank of Korea at the place of payment.

However, the defendant's assertion that most of the above fertilizers supplied by the plaintiff were damaged at the time of their arrival. Since the plaintiff, who is the seller, knew of the above fact, supplied it, the defendant would have cancelled the above sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant around September 12, 1985. Thus, it is difficult to find out that the new witness's name and part of the high-tech witness's testimony as corresponding thereto are about some of the above fertilizers supplied by the defendant, and there is no evidence to find that the above fertilizers were defective to the extent that it could not achieve the purpose of the contract, and it is not possible to find that the above price of the fertilizers was part of the defective goods supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff. According to Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Act, even if some defects were found in the above domestic fertilizer delivery, the defendant did not immediately notify the seller of the defect at the time of the above sale of the new fertilizer delivery to the extent that it is not acknowledged that the new fertilizer delivery had been made at the time of the above 10th of the new fertilizer delivery to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 58,960,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 1, 1985 to September 14 of the same year, which is clear on the record that the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case (the payment date of the above promissorysory note shall be interpreted as the due date of maturity of April 30 of the same year) and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the due date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in all of its reasoning, and the original judgment shall be justified as with this conclusion, and the appeal against this failure shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Ansan-dong (Presiding Judge)