1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the judgment on the allegations emphasized by the Defendants in this court is added.

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fourth 14th tier judgment of the first instance court "this court" shall be added to "the first instance court".

The 5th and 10th of the first instance judgment “I (I appears to be a local corporation established by B)” is used as “AH (in light of the dialogue between Defendant B and its staff members, it appears to be a Hong Kong corporation actually operated by Defendant B),” and all “I” are used as “AH”.

The following shall be added to the 8th 11th 11th son of the judgment of the first instance.

Although this Court ordered the Defendants to submit relevant financial data, it made it difficult to calculate the accurate amount of rebates by failing to submit foreign account transactions, such as K and H, with respect to the Defendants and the Defendants, without stating the grounds that the Defendants would be able to obtain payment (the Defendants asserted that the details of AH’s account transactions cannot be found, but did not explain that the Defendants failed to submit the remaining account details.

) On the 10th 3rd 10th 10th 1 of the judgment of the first instance, “E explains that it is identical to the Plaintiff” to “E is an external business entity of the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong IPO and promptly explains that it will substitute the Plaintiff’s functions of the Hong Kong IPO.”

In the first instance judgment of 10th 6th 10, "OEM and ODM companies" are added next to "OEM and ODM companies".

The following shall be added to "non-existent points" of the 10th 12th 12th e.g.:

“Defendant B submitted to this court e-mail (Evidence No. 10 and 12) and a statement of accounts (Evidence No. 11) by asserting that E had played a variety of roles between parts and ODM companies, but the above statement of accounts was actually borne by Defendant B or E.