1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion explained that the Defendant will be supplied with documentary care and export to Vietnam on December 30, 2013, and agreed to be supplied with the goods until January 20, 2014 at the Defendant’s request, the Defendant’s mandatory agent, provided that the goods will be shipped to Vietnam on the date of the above supply, and that B would be liable for the termination of the contract with the Vietnam company and for the damages if the goods are not shipped on the above delivery date, and thus, the instant contract constitutes a final transaction under Article 68 of the Commercial Act, which is a final transaction where the purpose of the contract can not be achieved unless the goods are not performed on a certain date or within a certain period by nature of the sale or declaration of intention of the parties.

However, on January 20, 2014, the Defendant failed to supply Logic care by January 20, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not immediately file a claim for implementation. Therefore, the instant contract was rescinded.

B. In full view of the purport of the evidence presented in the judgment, the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with the Defendant to be exported to Vietnam, even though it is deemed that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that there was no specific assertion by the Plaintiff regarding the shipment method, conditions, and payment method of goods between the Plaintiff and the Vietnam company. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s ground for assertion alone cannot be readily concluded that the contract and the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Vietnam company were final and conclusive transaction, and there is no evidence that the Defendant was aware of such circumstance, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.