All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant A corporation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant agreement entered into by the Defendants’ joint supply and demand contractors is a contract that is not deemed a partnership under the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendants are individually liable for damages arising therefrom.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of joint contractors and the interpretation

2. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court determined that the causal relationship between Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”)’s breach of duty and the occurrence of the instant accident was not recognized, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on this part. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on this part, on the grounds that there was no cause attributable to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for damages arising from the failure to repair and resume the instant facilities.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles, violating the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

3. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Pacific Law Firm (LLC) and the ground of appeal No. 1 of the Attorney Kim Jong-sub by Defendant A, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, violated the obligation of Defendant A to cooperate in the repair and re-operation of the instant facilities in accordance with the instant agreement.