The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court determined that the Defendants could not be deemed to have exempted Plaintiff A from the previous liability solely on the basis of the written confirmation of this case, by citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, that the distribution agency business, the use of inventory stamps, and the settlement of the royalty reporting based on the lamere, which the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) conducted by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) constituted a violation of the Master Contract, and that the Plaintiff’s reduction of and omission in

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment as stated in the grounds of appeal or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there was no damage inflicted by the Defendants due to Plaintiff A’s reduction in reporting the royalties, and cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment that Plaintiff A’s omission in reporting the royalties constitutes a ground for termination of a master agreement as an act destroying trust relationship, which serves as the basis of a master agreement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, there is no error in the judgment of the court below that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting judgment as stated in the grounds of appeal or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the judgment criteria

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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.