As stated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that the Plaintiff did not intend to realize the instant contract or had an intent to waive the contract at the end of March, 2016, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s intent to refuse performance is clear and ultimately expressed.

The Defendants asserted that “the Plaintiff explicitly expressed its intent to refuse performance, and even if the prior confession was made by the Defendants, it is unlawful for the lower court to recognize the refusal of performance differently.” However, whether the refusal of performance of a clear nationality is a matter of legal evaluation and thus a confession (or prior confession) subject to the requirement cannot be established. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit without need to further examine.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by Defendant C alone is insufficient to recognize the occurrence of damages and causation as alleged.

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants against the defendant is justified, and the plaintiff's counterclaim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the appeal against the defendants and the appeal against the defendant C's counterclaim are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.