1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons to be stated in this case by the appellate court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) the six-party 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “total amount of KRW 587,408,044,” “total amount of KRW 687,408,044,” and (b) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance other than adding the following two are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby

2. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case was terminated at least implicitly.

The rescission of a contract may be made not only explicitly but also by an implied agreement between the parties. However, to recognize an implied rescission of the contract, the mere fact that both parties have failed to perform the remaining obligations over a long period of time upon the conclusion of the contract and the performance of the part thereof is insufficient. The conclusion of the contract ought to reach the extent that both parties are able to have no intent to realize the contract or to waive the contract.

In such a case, whether both parties have no intent to realize the contract or to waive the contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances after the conclusion of the contract.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da12682, 12699, Jun. 25, 1996; 2010Da77385, Feb. 10, 201). In the relevant damages case, the Plaintiffs asserted the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the grounds of nonperformance by the Defendant, and accordingly claimed the return of the sales contract amount already paid by the Plaintiffs and the damages therefrom. Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ declaration of intent to cancel the instant sales contract was premised on the premise that the Defendant did not have an intention to separately prepare measures against the part in violation.

In light of this point, the plaintiffs only exercised their rights based on the judgment that they are liable for nonperformance, and they intend to realize the sales contract of this case.