손해배상(기)
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company D had a duty to revitalize the shopping mall of this case by simultaneously opening the entire shopping mall.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment, misapprehending the legal doctrine, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected all the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the impossibility and cancellation of the instant sales contract, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs’ cancellation of the instant sales contract cannot be deemed lawful, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the impossibility of performing the instant sales contract and the requirements for cancelling the contract, or omitting judgment.
3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the lower court rejected all the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages under Article 3(4)2 of the terms of the instant trust agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. and damages claims arising from the cancellation of the instant sales contract.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the matters stipulated in the instant trust agreement and the liability
4. As to the ground of appeal No. 5, the lower court rejected all the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against Defendant C, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s judgment is so alleged in the grounds of appeal.