1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2...

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition of part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, there are parts that conflict with the reasons for the judgment of the court). Alteration and addition parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: 6th to 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance.

As follows, the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Defendant or causing mistake as to the important part of the contract, caused the conclusion of the contract of this case. The Defendant cancelled the contract of this case on the grounds of deceit or induced mistake, or sought return of unjust enrichment of KRW 165,00,000,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was excluded from the scope of exclusion from the examination of safety and effectiveness of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. Although the Plaintiff did not undergo a clinical trial in accordance with lawful procedures under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the Plaintiff violated this provision, and issued a product performance certificate stating as if it was conducted a lawful clinical trial. The Plaintiff was aware that the raw materials of the dental white substance of this case were not products eligible to obtain permission for manufacture of medicines, rather than products, and prepared a technical summary without undergoing verification of product ingredients. From 10, 2010 to 315,000, the remainder of the period of extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of this case was completed from 137 years to 10.

C. A summary of the Plaintiff’s second defense tax invoice.