The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of the cancellation of a contract due to a default, where the intention not to perform in advance is expressed, the requirements for the cancellation of the contract are mitigated in comparison with the cancellation of the contract at the time of the delay of performance because the other party's peremptory notice and the offer for the performance of his/her own obligation in simultaneous performance relations are not required. In order to recognize implied intention for the refusal of performance by taking into account the various circumstances after the time of the contract or after the contract, the intention of refusal should be clearly recognized in light of the circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77385, Feb. 10, 2011). The lower court determined that the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone, based on its stated reasoning, cannot be deemed to have clearly and ultimately indicated the Plaintiff’s intention to refuse performance of the instant sales contract.

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 cancellation of a contract and the scope of compensation for damages, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and omitting judgment, etc.

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.