1. The first instance judgment, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended and selectively changed, is as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of Article 18(1) of the former Review Regulations, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of Article 18(1)1 of the former Review Regulations. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of Article 18(1)1 of the former Review Regulations, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of Article 18(1)1 of the former Review Regulations, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of Article 18(1)1 of the former Review Regulations.

6. The Defendants asserts that the AA’s plans were prepared using the AA’s gold-type production-related drawings.

However, on or around February 2012 or around March 2012, the result of the first instance court’s verification of the criminal case against the Defendants of the 3DD files by the Defendants was found to have been converted from 3D CAD files to 2D CAD files once more than the same time. The expansion of the AA’s 3DD drawings is “*.xt4” and these expansions are not immediately converted into 2DCAD files, while the Plaintiff’s 3DDD files were not easily converted into 2DCAD files, it appears that the expansion of the BDD files can be easily converted into 2DCAD files. In light of the result of the verification of the above 2DDD files by the Defendants, it is difficult to believe that the Defendants had received the above revised A21 on December 28, 2011.

7) Based on the AA’s drawings, Defendant D stated that the work was carried out in the Plaintiff’s file in the form of “mick” in order to facilitate the 2000 Formula or the modification work. The work itself constitutes a case where the time and cost were saved by referring to the Plaintiff’s drawings and files or by omitting necessary experiments.