The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) claiming the cancellation of the contract based on nonperformance and claiming the return of the sale price already paid, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) who bears the obligation to deliver individual stores performed by the ordinary interior construction in accordance with the instant lease contract was not performed, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim on the counterclaim seeking payment of the remainder of the sale price on the premise that the instant lease contract is valid.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the interpretation of the lease sale contract, lease contract, sublease contract, and delivery, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Other grounds of appeal are with regard to the determination of the family register of the court below. Unless the judgment of the court below was erroneous, the propriety of the family register determination cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be accepted without the need for further determination.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.