Of the costs of appeal, the Plaintiff, Defendant, Kim Dong-dong Co., Ltd., Ltd.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant School Foundation A, B, E, and G (hereinafter “Defendant A”)

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Defendant B, E, and G (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) did not manipulate test data during the same-sex test process of each of the instant drugs, and did not neglect to keep original data, this part of the ground of appeal is merely a dispute over the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s full power as a fact-finding court, and it is difficult to view this part of the judgment of the lower court as a legitimate ground of appeal. In light of the records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, a property loss caused by a tort refers to a difference between the property disadvantage caused by an illegal harmful act and the current property condition caused by the illegal act. Thus, in calculating the amount of damages, the property should first be presented that would have existed if the illegal act had not been committed. Considering the circumstances in the presentation of the property status in the absence of the illegal act, the circumstances should be acknowledged by a reasonable trend comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the illegal act. If the circumstances alleged by the parties are not acknowledged by such trend, it cannot be considered to present the property status in the absence of the illegal act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21276, Jul. 8, 2010). The lower court held that the Plaintiff’s financial status of the Plaintiff, which had not committed an unlawful act by Defendant B, did not constitute a medical care benefit item since it did not manipulate the data about the same-sex test for each of the instant pharmaceutical products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s financial status of the instant pharmaceutical products, which had not existed,