1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

With respect to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, this court shall accept the reasoning of the judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following judgments as to the grounds for entering the reasoning of the judgment or the Plaintiff’s repeated assertion (to the extent of supplement in case of the Plaintiff’s reference documents submitted after the closing of argument in the court of first instance).

The defendant in Part 5 of the third judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be "Codefendant Codefendant in the court of first instance, Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: hereinafter referred to as "AFI"), and the defendant in Part 7 of the third judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be "IFI", and the defendant in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be "IFI", and the other "Defendant company" shall be deemed to be "IFI electronic" and the other "the defendant company" shall be

The part of "A. Judgment" in Forms 1 through 9 of the first instance judgment shall be stated as follows:

B. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant concealed or carried out the duties, such as an application for exemption from conformity assessment, without going through consultation or work process inside the Plaintiff company, even if it could have known that the Defendant knew of the fact that STB was not subject to exemption from conformity assessment or was aware of the fact that the Defendant was an expert in the broadcasting sector, including the written testimony on E by a witness in the trial including the evidence Nos. 13 through 18 (in the event of a serial number, including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the respective statements and the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the defendant is only found to have reported matters related to the exemption from suitability evaluation and XCAS on several occasions at an open bureau meeting, etc. in the presence of the plaintiff representative director E at the time of April 201 to May 5, 201.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is followed.