beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant as set forth in the following 2. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit taken over the lawsuit of this case by the custodian H of a rehabilitation company A upon receipt of a simplified decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and on November 23, 2016, the simplified rehabilitation procedures are terminated (Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap10053), and the fact that A took over the lawsuit is significant in this court.
B. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for total damages equivalent to fixed costs of KRW 240,312,175,175, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was unable to engage in any sale even if it was final and conclusive from October 17, 2013 to April 14, 2015, when the judgment revoking the instant disposition was rendered by the Administrator of the Food and Drug Administration from October 17, 2013.
B) However, the evidence evidence Nos. 11-14 and 25 alone lacks to deem the fixed costs as additional costs for the sale of the instant medical device, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Rather, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff manufactures and sells hot fever (Drycut 100) and two products of eyeasis (eyeasis 1100 and eyeas 2000) for medical use. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Plaintiff is for 16 business purposes, such as the wholesale and retail of pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and health food wholesale and trade business, and the fact that the Plaintiff obtained permission for the manufacture of medical device on November 5, 2012, the Plaintiff is employed only for the sale of the instant medical device.