The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the record, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, prepared the instant performance rejection as a joint assumption of obligation, and even if the Defendant merely prepared the instant performance rejection in the meaning of performance acceptance, the Plaintiff may seek the performance of the obligation against the Plaintiff by subrogation against the Defendant, who is insolvent G as a creditor against G, and subsequently, did not fulfill the conditions of conditional juristic acts.

In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that the letter of performance of this case, which was made by conspiracy, false representation or deception, was null and void is justifiable. In so doing, 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 failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation of disposal documents, or declaration of intention by conspiracy, false representation,

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.