beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim that was changed in the trial.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the instant case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modification of “decision as to the counterclaim claim”. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not produce and supply a panel as stipulated in the supply contract of this case, and the defect repair of the above panel products requires excessive expenses, and the defendant shall be compensated by the plaintiff for damages caused by the difference in the price of the above steel plate. This is a situation where the damage was not compensated due to the lapse of the exclusion period of warranty liability.
The defendant suffered mental suffering due to the contractor's failure to perform its duty under the terms of the contract, which is a separate damage to the defendant's body, which goes beyond the scope of the warranty liability of the above panel's product itself, and thus, it is claimed as compensation for the above mental suffering of the plaintiff, 20,000 won and damages for delay.
B. Where there is a defect in a contract for the supply of products supplied by the contractor, it is reasonable to deem that the mental suffering that the contractor suffered by the contractor is recovered due to the repair of the defect or the compensation for the defect in lieu of the repair of the defect. If the contractor suffered an irrecoverable mental suffering due to the repair of the defect or the compensation for the damage, it is a special reason that the contractor can recognize consolation money for mental suffering only where the contractor knew or could have known such circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da12798 delivered on June 11, 1996). However, since the defendant's assertion of consolation money is based on the premise that there is a defect in the panel's products supplied by the plaintiff, the defendant's assertion of consolation money is based on health class and the first instance