The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the Defendant the estimated amount of damages equivalent to the contract deposit pursuant to Article 7(6) of the instant subcontract because the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to supply glass products meeting the performance standards set by the Defendant, and thus, rejected the Plaintiff’s primary assertion that the Plaintiff’s obligation was impossible since the conclusion of the instant

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the burden of proof in the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of obligation, the distribution of performance, or the original impossibility

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 6, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, became unable to perform its obligations due to the Defendant’s improper demand.

The court determined that there were most causes attributable to the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, incomplete deliberation, omission in

3. 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.