The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the grounds of appeal on comparative negligence ratio, the lower court’s determination that limits the scope of the remaining Defendants’ damages liability to 80% is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence,

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the nature of the late payment of global income tax, the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, determined that the instant contract amount constituted other income, as “the penalty and compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract,” as stipulated in Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was paid compensation for losses incurred from the delay of the payment of the purchase price from the

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, it is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the contingent fee agreement, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 234,52,600 won, which is the amount defensive to Defendant B’s defense by dismissing or reducing the claim of sampling Co., Ltd. in the instant civil lawsuit, as a successful fee, from the date one month after the judgment of the appellate court of the said civil lawsuit became final and conclusive.

In addition, with respect to the claim for contingent remuneration of Defendant B law firm's amounting to KRW 978,521,447, it is necessary to collect the same amount of the claim.