All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to each of the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that the Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff under the above provision on the premise that the Product Liability Act does not apply to the instant case, and that Article 10 of the Product Liability Act is a provision on the Plaintiff’s duty of cooperation and the Defendant’

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal, this part of the ground of appeal is nothing more than a legitimate ground of appeal,

3. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Defendant could not be held liable for nonperformance of the entire quantity of 3 and 4 primary products in excess of the quantity of the products selected by the Plaintiff following the transfer inspection, on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the defect rate of 3 and 4 primary products as indicated in the lower judgment exceeds the ordinary level that may arise from mass supply, based on the comprehensive consideration

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on defects in a mass goods transaction contract.

4. Conclusions. All appeals are filed.