2. The costs of appeal are borne by the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant violated the Fair Trade Act by offering rebates to medical care institutions, committed a joint tort claiming unfair medicine costs in collusion with medical care institutions, and that the plaintiffs suffered damages as follows. Therefore, they are liable for damages under Article 56 of the Fair Trade Act or tort liability under the Civil Act.

1) According to the repayment scheme, medical care benefits are determined on the basis of the amount actually purchased by a medical care institution within the notified maximum amount. Therefore, even if a medical care institution received unfair rebates from a pharmaceutical company and obtained economic benefits corresponding thereto, if it reported the purchase cost of the relevant medicine and received such payment in accordance with the notified maximum amount, the patients who purchased the relevant medicine would incur damages equivalent to the percentage of rebates out of their own charges. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant violated the Fair Trade Act, such as unfairly inducing customers by providing rebates to the medical care institution, and even if the medical care institution obtained the actual profits from purchasing the relevant medicine at a low price, even though it had to deduct the amount of rebates from the actual transaction, it should be determined on the basis of the publicly notified maximum amount without deducting the amount, and thus, the Plaintiffs should be deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to the amount of rebates out from the aforementioned joint tort by Defendant and the medical care institution.

3. Meanwhile, on the other hand.