The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The issue is that the plaintiffs' contract for the supply of the domestic scrap notification (hereinafter "the first contract") entered into with the defendant on June 30, 198 was impossible to perform because the central government of China changed the export of the scrap notification, which was the permission of each sex, to the permission of the central government. The above export system modification constitutes force majeure for which the plaintiffs are not responsible. However, the court below failed to make a decision without examining it. However, the court below recognized the performance guarantee obligation obligation of this case for which the plaintiffs seek non-existence confirmation is not against the first contract, but against the plaintiff Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff Daesung Industrial") and the defendant after the non-performance of the first contract, it was recognized that the performance guarantee bond was provided to the second contract regardless of the first contract, and it is not necessary to determine the validity of the second contract. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The issue is that the second contract entered into with the defendant is defective due to the plaintiff's pathy that the defendant forced the defendant to be exempted from forfeiture of the performance bond due to the failure to perform the first contract, and the performance bond equivalent to 15 percent of the value of supply corresponding to 10 percent of the value of supply demanded by the defendant, and the performance bond of 15 percent is invalid because it goes against the public order and good morals, and it is invalid. However, the court below did not make an incomplete deliberation and determination. However, the second contract can be acknowledged that the defendant did not acquire the performance bond of the second contract at the request of the plaintiff while he did not acquire it, and it can be recognized that the performance bond of the second contract was entered into by free declaration of intention between the plaintiff Sungsung Industrial and the defendant, and it cannot be said that there was a defect of expression such as theory or that the performance bond was 15 percent of the value of supply. Therefore, the above argument also does not violate good morals.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below recognized that the term of validity of the guaranteed letter of credit, which was provided at the time of the second contract between the plaintiff Da Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the plaintiff Da Co., Ltd) extended to the term of validity of the guarantee letter of credit that was provided at the time of the second contract between the plaintiff Da Co., Ltd. and the defendant, consented to the use of the plaintiff Da Co. as a performance bond provided to the defendant according to the second contract. This fact-finding is acceptable, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment in the recognition

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below recognized that the performance bond, which the plaintiff Daesung Industry provided to the defendant, requires the defendant to provide the performance bond equivalent to 10 percent of the contract amount when the defendant concludes a purchase contract to enforce the contract to the supplier, and the supplier provides it to the defendant at the request of the defendant, and the defendant, in the event that the contract is not performed by the supplier, shall confiscate it and return it to the supplier when the contract is performed. In light of the above contents of the contract, the performance bond of this case is indirectly forced the contract of the supplier rather than the liquidated liquidated damages, and the supplier has the nature of the penalty or sanction to be owned by the defendant when the contract is performed by the supplier. Such fact-finding and decision are acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scheduled damages, omission of

5. Ultimately, all the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)