1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs' claims 1) The plaintiff Incheon Drug Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff Incheon Drug"), which engages in the wholesale business of drugs, etc.

(2) As of June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff Thai medicine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Thai medicine”) engaging in the wholesale business of drugs (hereinafter “Plaintiff Thai medicine”), as of June 27, 2014, there was KRW 102,891,431 on the purchase price claim against A for the goods as of June 27, 2014.

3) The head of the Plaintiff, Inc., Ltd., which runs the wholesale business of pharmaceutical products (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Chang Chang-chul”).

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs, the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs and the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs, and the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs was not fully paid as of June 29, 2014, are insufficient to recognize the details of the outstanding amount of the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs. However, according to the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 5 and No. 6, the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs and the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs, in light of the developments leading up to the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, etc. filed against the Plaintiff in the lawsuit, including revocation of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, and the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs was not fully paid from the Plaintiff’s purchase of drugs. (b) As to the Defendant’s delivery of drugs to the Defendant, A, on June 29, 2014, was recognized.

) All of the documents were delivered. [Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (each entry, including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the defense was: (a) the Defendant, on June 29, 2014, knew of the fact that the instant drug was delivered to him/her on delivery; and (b) one year has elapsed thereafter, filed the instant lawsuit; and (c) the instant lawsuit was unlawful on account of the lapse of the exclusion period.

(b) No. 1-proof of determination.