• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.37-72
• /
• 2016

In the aerospace field, besides special purpose airplanes, contracts for supply of various types of products such as prototypes, unmanned aerial vehicles and space launch vehicles are increasing. In the case of the contractor, it was planned to spend a large amount of money to supply the production, but if the purchase specification that presents the quality and performance standard of the product is poor or lacks the capacity to judge the performance, consuming enormous amounts of time and money. Even if the undertaker does not have the ability to supply the products with the required performance and quality to achieve the purpose of the contract, he/she must pay the cost of burial due to the incompleteness of the work and the compensation for the cancellation of the contract. In this case, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to supply the aircraft by the Happy Box method, which is capable of ILS Offset flight as specified in the Purchase Specification, but the plaintiff attempted to supply the aircraft by the RNAV method. Although the ILS ground signal can be inspected by the RNAV method, the aircraft manufactured in the manner claimed by the plaintiff does not have the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification, so the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification. It was a question of whether a defendant's cancellation of contract was legitimate. The aircraft, which is the object of this contract, is a subordinate substitute, so the case contract is of undertaking. Therefore, in order to complete the work in this contract, the major structural parts of the aircraft must be manufactured as agreed and have the performance generally required in the social sense. However, the aircraft delivered by the plaintiff has serious defects because the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification due to the lack of the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification. This deficiency is impossible for the plaintiff to repair, so the defendant 's cancellation of the contract is legitimate.