2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows: (a) under the 10th sentence of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, “... the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for damages and whether to prove it” is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420

(C) The scope of the defendant's liability for damages is 1) in principle, in the event of a claim for damages as well as the cancellation of a contract on the ground of the non-performance of the obligation to compensate for damages, the creditor may seek damages from the performance of the contract, i.e., the expenses incurred by the creditor, i., the trust interest, i.e., the performance of the contract. Of the trust interest, the expenses normally incurred in the conclusion and performance of the contract can be claimed regardless of whether the other party knew or could have known as ordinary damages. The expenses in excess can be claimed only if the other party knew or could have known as damages due to special circumstances. However, the trust interest cannot exceed the scope of the performance interest in light of the principle of excessive compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2539, Jun. 11, 2002). Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's obligation under each of the following contracts to use the park cemetery of this case is impossible, and the defendant has a duty to arrange between the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs.