The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court clearly expressed the intent to refuse performance by disposing all the facilities produced by the Defendant under the instant construction contract to a third party, and on this ground, the instant construction contract was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the contract, and thus, determined that the Defendant was liable to return the down payment to the Plaintiff as restitution following the cancellation of the instant construction contract

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the creditor's body or non-performance.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, even if the construction contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, the plaintiff also owes the duty to return some of the products supplied by the defendant to the defendant and its benefits to the defendant. This part of the ground of appeal is the first argument in the final appeal, and thus,

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.