All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff may file a claim for refund of the price for return only when it actually delivers the product to the Defendant Company or provides the performance of delivery within the distribution period, where there is no reason attributable to the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) such as product defect in the interpretation of Article 12(2) of the supply contract of this case as to the return of the goods.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the return provision of Article 12(2) of the instant supply contract.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company delivered the product indicated in the lower judgment (attached Form 1) to the Defendant Company or provided delivery for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the actual delivery or delivery of the products required to be returned.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal (1) Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, deemed that the Defendants’ demand for return of the instant supply contract or the instant supply contract pursuant to Article 12(2) of the instant supply contract and the Plaintiff’s return provision, the instant transfer security contract, and the Defendant Company’s burden of paying expenses for the installation of pharmacies or a monetary reward to its employees is an exclusive dealing with detention (exclusive dealing), which is an unfair trade practice under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, (a) an abuse of transaction status (a coercion of offering profits, and a disadvantageous provision)