The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court deemed that the collective meal service business is merely a type of business that operates domestic businesses and imported businesses, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is an independent business that exists in a virative manner, and that there is no provision stipulating that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) may exceptionally handle imported meat in relation to group meal service business, and that the Defendant succeeded to group meal service business partners regardless of the ratio of imported meat and sales from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and succeeded to the employment of employees in charge of group meal service. However, it appears that the Plaintiff’s transfer of a small-medium factory to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff could no longer operate group meal service business in a normal manner, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s supply of part of imported meat to the Defendant for cooperation with other general customers dealing with imported meat with imported meat together, and thus, it appears that the Defendant’s act of supplying the Defendant’s final imported meat in the instant case’s supply of this case.