All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the instant preferential right contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was invalidated by the conclusion of the instant distribution right contract specifying the grant of sales right after that contract, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s obligation to supply the goods, as stipulated in the instant distribution right contract, became impossible due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning. On January 18, 2011, the lower court determined that the instant distribution right contract was lawfully rescinded by reaching the Defendant around February 7, 2011, on the grounds that the Defendant expressed that he did not intend to implement the instant distribution right contract by notice given around January 18, 201.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the conclusion of the lower judgment that rejected the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable, although the reasoning of the lower judgment was partially inappropriate.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of contracts, or by inconsistency or

2. In principle, in a case where the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are claimed as well as a rescission of a contract on the grounds of nonperformance, the obligee is entitled to seek compensation for the benefit that the obligee would obtain due to the rescission of the contract, i.e., performance of the contract. However, the obligee may seek compensation for the expenses incurred by the obligee, i.e., trust interest, and the expenses normally incurred for the conclusion and performance of the contract among the trust interest, regardless of whether the other party was aware or could have known as ordinary damages, and the expenses spent in excess of the above is special