1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant A, B, C, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”) of the Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant G”) committed a test result on biological equivalence (hereinafter “living equivalence”) with respect to the Defendant A, B, and C, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”)’s original drug (hereinafter “instant drug”) is identical to that of the original drug, based on its reasoning.

Therefore, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for lost profit seeking damages equivalent to the operating profit that would have been earned by obtaining marketing approval from the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration if Defendant A et al. had not operated the test results of the Defendant A et al. on the premise that the same-sexness of each of the instant drugs was recognized.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, this judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to recognition of the same sex of each drug of this case, or by violating the logical and empirical rules or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. As to the fifth ground for appeal

A. On September 28, 2006, the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, when the result of the same-sexing test of each of the instant drugs was reduced, to seek compensation for damages equivalent to the amount that the Plaintiff was unable to sell each of the instant drugs after being recovered or returned, and the amount that the Plaintiff was discarded at the time, and the amount that the Plaintiff was discarded, such as inventory, etc., (i) Defendant G.