The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant failed to perform the above delivery obligation within a reasonable period despite the Plaintiff’s notice of performance, which was given due to delay in the performance of the delivery obligation under the instant subcontract contract, and thus, determined that the instant subcontract contract was rescinded around December 20, 2012 upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of rescission on the grounds of delay in performance by the Defendant, and thus ordered the return of the money that the Defendant received as part of the down payment and the intermediate payment.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the requirements for rescission of contract, the burden of proof for causes attributable to the contract, the scope of restitution at the time of rescission of contract, or by omitting judgment beyond the bounds

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.