The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court failed to have legal knowledge required for an average attorney-at-law in the course of handling the case delegated by the Defendants.

Considering that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants did not make efforts to the extent required by an average attorney-at-law, they rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants breached their duty of care as a good manager.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, omitting judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of due care as a good manager of an attorney-at-law delegated with litigation.

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.