All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s supply of IMO equipment with the performance of 20,000 simultaneous calls is deemed to be the purpose of the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff performed its obligation solely with the supply of IMO equipment with the performance of only 8,500 simultaneous calls. Since IMO equipment supplied by the Plaintiff appears to be impossible to achieve the objective of the instant project, the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 was lawfully rescinded upon the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s declaration of termination of each contract, and thus, all of the Plaintiff’s main claims against the Defendants were dismissed, and part of Defendant B’s counterclaim claim was accepted.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.

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 on requirements for the rescission of contract.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.