1. An appeal filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant B and Defendant C and D and this Court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a decision on the new cause of claim which the plaintiff added as the conjunctively in this court, and thus, citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The first instance court's findings and determination are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this court, which was duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, and the first instance court's findings and determination is justifiable).

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the court added the claim for damages based on the establishment of a contract to grant a general right by an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

1) Although the Defendant Company did not grant the Plaintiff a total sales right to FF goods, a sports brand related to water skiing, the Defendant Company did not act as if the employee I granted the Plaintiff a total sales right, and there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the said I had the power of representation. As such, a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company was concluded in accordance with the representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act. (ii) Even though the Plaintiff notified the Defendant Company of the supply of the second goods, the Defendant Company did not supply the second goods, and instead supplied the second goods to the Defendant C and D, the Defendant Company failed to perform its obligation under the instant goods supply contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff cancels the contract for the supply of the goods in this case, and requests the defendant company to return KRW 3,250,320 to its original state.

In addition, the Defendants conspired to supply Defendant Company with secondary goods to Defendant C and D, disregarding the Plaintiff’s total right to purchase the Plaintiff’s F goods, and the Defendants jointly and severally compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to KRW 28,304,250 of the Plaintiff’s property damage.

B. Determination exceeds the authority stipulated in Article 126 of the Civil Act.