1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on the claim for the destruction of products, raw materials, and machinery and equipment kept in the place of “a, etc.”

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the separate sheet of claim(s) and each “a modified cause of claim(s).”

2. Article 208 (3) 2, and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment on deemed as private capital);

3. In the claim of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeking the destruction of each product, semi-finished products, and raw materials and machinery equipment as indicated in the separate sheet against the Defendants, and sought from the Defendants only for the manufacture of each product, semi-finished products, and the manufacture of the product. The Plaintiff also sought the destruction of each of the above products, raw materials, and machinery equipment kept in the place of “B, etc.” other than the Defendants’ company, factory, warehouse, and agent.

However, since the above purport does not specify the place of “a, etc.” in detail, the Defendants’ products, raw materials, and machinery equipment kept in the place cannot be specified. Thus, if a judgment, such as the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim, is pronounced, it would result in a result that the execution body cannot be able to properly execute the judgment itself.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the destruction of each product, semi-finished products, and raw materials and machinery that are used only for the manufacture of each product listed in the separate sheet in the “Defendant Products, etc.” in the instant lawsuit is unlawful since the purport of the claim is not specified, and thus, it is dismissed.

(However, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants by applying Article 98 and the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act).