The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The result of appraisal by an appraiser shall be respected unless the method of appraisal, etc. is against the rule of experience or is so obvious that it is unreasonable or unreasonable.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da92866, Dec. 11, 2014). Moreover, the recognition of facts and the preparation and evaluation of evidence, which form the basis thereof, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the sales contract for the instant pumps was lawfully rescinded, on the ground that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) could not achieve the purpose of purchasing the instant pumps, on the grounds that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) could not have maintained the temperature or habit necessary for building neglect, and thus did not require the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to have any quality or performance guaranteed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no violation of law such as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or failing to properly satisfy the reasons for the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.