The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After finding facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the Defendant renounced the right to claim damages due to the defect in the semi-finished products supplied on March 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract with the content that the Plaintiff would waive the payment under the instant contract, on the grounds that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages due to the purchase price to the exchange organization closure and the household semi-finished products defect, and rejected all the Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of the right to representation related to the preparation of the instant agreement, the expressed representative under Article 395 of the Commercial Act, the commercial employee, the commercial employer having the partial comprehensive power of representation under Article 15 of the Commercial

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the cancellation of agreement, the power of representation, and the representation of expression, etc., by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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.