2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in milk processing, processing, and the sales business of the same product. On November 27, 2009, Plaintiff A entered into a D agency contract with the Defendant on December 30, 2008, Plaintiff B entered into an agency contract with the Defendant on December 30, 2008, and Plaintiff C entered into a F agency contract with the Defendant on January 1, 2001, and the Plaintiffs received milk-processed products from the Defendant and operated an agency that supplies them to convenience stores, Schlages, etc.

B. The Plaintiffs, through their own PCs or portable PDA devices, issued orders to the Defendant by directly inputting the order quantity in the computerized order system operated by the Defendant, or by telephoneing the Defendant’s business employees to make an oral order for the necessary volume, and the Defendant supplied genetic products to each agency in line with the order quantity.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that they abuse their trade position and forced them to arbitrarily supply products exceeding the order quantity to the plaintiffs who are agency owners and to pay the price for such products. This is an act in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Thus, the defendant, a business operator, is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the above violation under Article 56 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

In addition, the defendant deprived the business partners who had been engaged in transactions entrusted by the head office on the ground that the sales price of the plaintiffs' agencies was lowered, and committed illegal acts such as interfering with the sales price, items, sales time, etc. of the products to the plaintiffs in order to increase the return of profit and sales, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for

3. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone that the defendant forced the purchase of the product in a manner that the defendant supplies the plaintiffs with an order exceeding the ordered quantity, or the transaction partner.