The judgment below

The part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the counterclaim is reversed, and this part of the case is in question.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the Army Headquarters C neglected its duty of care as F in inspecting the instant goods, and that such mistake contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the defect of the instant goods.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence of creditors.

B. Meanwhile, in a contract between the parties, where the amount of damages due to the obligor’s nonperformance is predetermined, even if the obligee was negligent in the occurrence and expansion of damages due to the nonperformance, the obligor, including the obligee’s negligence, may reduce the amount of damages by taking into account all the circumstances such as the circumstances of the breach of the contract, etc., pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act; however, the obligor may not set off

(2) Article 10(4) of the Special Conditions of the instant contract provides that “The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) shall pay the estimated amount of compensation for damages agreed to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) by refusing the repair of defects or the demand for replacement supply of the Army Headquarters, and on the premise that the estimated amount of compensation for damages agreed to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is unreasonable, based on the adopted evidence. In light of the foregoing, the lower court’s reasoning, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court determined that Article 10(4) of the Special Conditions of the instant contract was liquidated damages for nonperformance of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”). However, there was a defect in the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and there was a duty to pay the estimated amount of compensation for damages agreed to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) by failing to perform his/her obligation.