beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 14, 2010 constituted a secondary lawsuit agreement, and rejected the Defendant’s principal safety defense, and determined that the instant agreement was invalidated due to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of rescission of the contract for waiver of rights under the instant agreement.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of an agreement to bring an action and the interpretation and application of the terms and conditions of rescission.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff may terminate the instant supply contract on the grounds that: (a) the fiduciary relationship, which forms the basis of the instant supply contract, was destroyed due to the Defendant’s declaration of refusal of performance; and (b) the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance delay for a period of more than 30 days; and (c) the Plaintiff could terminate the instant supply contract
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on refusal of performance and requirements for nonperformance
3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, terminated the Defendant’s failure to supply the instant supply contract.