1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part V, on the 3th anniversary of the 5th part, “as it is being placed on the 5th part,” the 5th part is as follows.

According to the evidence No. 10 (Protocol of Examination of Witnesses), the witness K of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015No311 case, which is the relevant criminal case, may recognize the fact that the court stated that part of the product for artificial eyebrow was supplied by N, which is another manufacturer of China, rather than the plaintiff's business entity. However, the above statement is presumed to be due to the fact that the whole of the plaintiff's products supplied by M, the representative director of which is the plaintiff, has many defective goods and the payment period has not expired (the above witness is presumed to have been due to the fact that other Japan's purchase price was high and that other Japan's products were first supplied with high trade terms and conditions.

) The main purpose of the aforementioned testimony is that G is due to the defect of M products and delay in the supply of part of the artificial eyebrow product from N, which was introduced by the Defendant C with the approval of the F Company as the OEM supplier. In other words, the main purpose of the above testimony is that G is that the main purpose of the testimony is that G is that the cause for receiving part of the artificial eyebrow product from N, and the content of the above statement is that N, the subject of the order for N, the form of transaction (in case of the statement of the above witness, G was not the Defendant B at the time of the testimony

) The part that Defendant C voluntarily provided the Plaintiff with the evidence No. 1 due to the Plaintiff’s coercive demand, or that the part that the Plaintiff’s artificial eyebrow products supplied by the Plaintiff was defective or delayed, such as dispute over the credibility of the part that the Plaintiff’s artificial eyebrow products.