1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the contract of this case was terminated or not, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the contract of this case was terminated or not, as seen earlier, by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the contract of this case was terminated or not, by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the contract of this case was terminated or not, by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the contract of this case was automatically extended every year.

① On June 30, 2015, the Defendants sent a written estimate (hereinafter “instant quotation”) including the following proposals to Plaintiff A.

The name/standard quantity unit supply value of G G 136ml X 35,000 (including value added tax) existing price of 100 50,000 (including value added tax) G G G 136ml 20,000 (Additional Tax 20,000) MT 1) MM Q: 1,500 (Additional Tax 20,000) products quality of the products can be consulted with the head office, but it is an OEM case, so the terms and conditions of the response sent on June 30, 2015 are as follows: (i) 60,000 (including 36ml*3EA, value added tax) ; (ii) 30 G 30,000 (including 36ml30,500) ; and (iii) 40,000 G 30,000 HM products will be held liable for the above quality of the products.

1. The home monopoly rights of HH company’s G Ansan (36ML) products are owned by E.

2. The contract term of the defendant company and E shall be three years;

(Provided, however, there is no responsibility of the Defendant Company for the issue of the terms and conditions of the contract with H company. 3. Since the Defendant Company’s business is an import agency business, communication with H company is jointly owned with E.

If it is possible to examine the above contents, the response shall be made by the deadline.