1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Forms 1 and 2, but excluding the part “3. conclusion”) except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. On the right side of the 5th amendment portion, the phrase “illegal” is added to “(On the other hand, the Plaintiff withdrawn a procedural unlawful assertion that there was no prior notice on each of the dispositions of this case by stating a preparatory document as of October 19, 2020 from the third date for pleading of this Court).”

Under the 7th below, the "Purchased volume of medicines and stock quantity" shall be deemed to be "Purchased volume and quantity of medicines", and the "Purchase quantity" in the same conduct shall be deemed to be "Purchase quantity (including stock quantity purchased before the period subject to the on-site investigation of this case, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)".

8 The term "20 -" in the 11st place shall be read as "20, A 23, and 25."

9 The following shall be added to the right side of the “able point” below:

【The Plaintiff appears to have submitted the above books to the Defendant around September 2012, the day before each disposition of the instant case was issued, and around 2018, another company engaged in transactions with the Plaintiff was also managing a transaction with the Plaintiff through a book prepared by the Plaintiff. The following contents are added to the right side of each disposition of the instant case that recognized the “alternatively prepared medicine” or “unmanufactured medicine” in comparison with the purchase volume and the claim amount. In order for the premise of each disposition of the instant case to be reasonable, not only the purchase volume during the period subject to the instant on-site investigation (from May 2009 to April 2012) but also the inventory volume as of May 2009 should also be considered.

Accordingly, the 13-1-2 of the 13-party 1 is dismissed as follows. The 13-party 1-2 of the 13-party 1 is unlawful and should be revoked.

2.