1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

Part 17 of the 6th page 17 is "B 4, 5, 7, 9, 13," "B 4, 5, 9, 13,"

The 6th page 18 "Witness" shall be the "Witness of the First Instance".

The 9th parallels 8 to 10th parallels are as follows.

According to the guidelines for the management of the Intervenor’s cooperative company, the term “cooperative company” means an enterprise registered in accordance with the procedure determined by the Intervenor, which is entitled to receive the materials or services ordered by the disciplinary intervenor, and the term “regular company” means a cooperative company registered after the regular registration and examination of the Intervenor among the cooperative companies. Provided, That where there has been no transaction for more than five years even after the registration as a regular company, it is managed as a “dormant company” in which the order is restricted. A limited company E did not impose any restriction upon receiving the order from the Intervenor as a regular company at the time the Plaintiff borrowed money from F. There was no restriction upon the Plaintiff’s receiving the order from the Intervenor as the regular company at the time of borrowing the money from F. There was no restriction upon the Plaintiff’s receiving the order from the Intervenor.

After the Intervenor’s termination of the contract with limited liability company E, the Plaintiff borrowed money from F, but at the time of the Plaintiff’s borrowing of money from F, the limited liability company E did not have any particular restrictions on the resumption of transaction with the Intervenor, since five years have not passed since the Plaintiff borrowed money from F to the Intervenor, the Plaintiff did not have any particular restrictions on the resumption of transaction again with the Intervenor.”

Part 10, Paragraph 3 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Paragraph 4 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

- the selection and management of a cooperative company by an intervenor who is a large enterprise shall be fair and reasonable.