The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof as to the grounds for termination of the lease contract of this case, contrary to what is alleged in the

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant did not pay six-time lease charges, and determined that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) may claim the amount of statutory loss under Article 21(3) of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, and that the said provision cannot be deemed to have stipulated the requirements for the right to cancel or terminate the contract, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion of violation of Article 9(3) of the Regulation of Standardized

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for claiming the amount of statutory loss, and the violation of Article 9(3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, contrary to what

3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the refusal to pay rent following the exercise of a right of defense against anxiety under Article 536(2) of the Civil Act does not constitute grounds for termination under Article 20(5) of the Lease Agreement.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on lease charges and non-performance of obligation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was not obligated to pay the stipulated loss.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is relevant to the subject of verifying the power to dispose of the leased building supplier, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.