The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had a business right distinct from the right of lease regarding the instant Party, and that the Defendant, regardless of who is the legitimate lessee of the instant Party, was aware of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff and agreed to the instant agreement, and determined that the instant agreement was lawfully revoked in accordance with the Defendant’s declaration of revocation on the ground of mistake, on the grounds that the Defendant was mistakenly aware of the Plaintiff as the legitimate lessee of the instant Party.

Examining the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Of the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the effect of the agreement in this case was extinguished due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty to transfer the lease agreement is inconsistent with the rules of evidence against the judgment of the court below. Thus, unless the judgment of the court below that the agreement in this case was revoked is erroneous, the propriety may not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Furthermore, even in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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.