1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the instant case is as follows, and the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs under paragraph (2) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

Of the judgment of the first instance, “Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”)” in the part of “Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”)” in the part of “Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) was changed from December 14, 2015 to the present trade name; hereinafter “Plaintiff A”).

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The contract period” with respect to “D” of the 4 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance refers to “within August 31, 2015” portion “Until June 30, 2015.”

C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “E” on the date of concluding a contract number “E” in the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance means “ September 1, 2015” in the part “E”

D. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “H(G’s modified contract)” part of “O(G’s modified contract”)” in the fourth page of the judgment of first instance

E. Of the judgment of the first instance, “N” on the date of concluding the contract number “N” in the fifth page of the judgment means “ December 1, 2016” in the part “No. 2016.”

F. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the 14th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 8th, below 9, 9th, 9th, and 15th, “Article 15-2” in the part “Article 15-5”.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion that the provision that the plaintiffs should continuously obtain a certificate of direct production during the contract period is null and void in violation of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' obligations are merely incidental to those of the parties, and thus, the contract bond of this case cannot be reverted to the National Treasury on the ground of the violation. Accordingly, the defendant is obliged to return the contract bond that the plaintiffs paid to the defendant. However, the court of first instance is obliged to return it to the defendant.