The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed).

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company concluded each of the instant service contracts and concluded a distribution agency fee for the goods released to the direct store based on the actual amount of delivery.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of disposal documents and legal acts or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the duty of explanation or intellectual duty as seen in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company violated the duty of disclosure as to the fact that it calculated a distribution agency fee for the goods released to the direct store at the time of each service contract of this case and applied on the basis of a discounted ex-factory price,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty of disclosure or by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part arising from the participation in the assistance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.