1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal under paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

A. Part V of the judgment of the court of first instance provides for the first page 17 to 6.

On July 6, 2016, F, the Plaintiff’s director, sent to Defendant B an e-mail (Evidence 6) stating, “F, as follows, has been able to receive in the total board at a today’s progress, the price at which the second event was made from the total board to the second event, and the final consumer price in China would be shared by the face value, e-mail (Evidence 6).”

A person shall be appointed.

(b) The following is added to Chapter 6, Chapter 9, the first instance court's 6th decision, and the second 6th Ma of the first instance court's 6th Ma is referred to as "h".

“E) On July 15, 2016, G issued a tax invoice on L Co., Ltd., stating the product cosmetics, total amount of 13,440,00, supply price of 12,218,181, tax amount of 1,221,819, a tax invoice stating the 15,680,000, supply price of 14,254,545, tax amount of 1,425,455, and a tax invoice stating the 1,425,455, and the 39,200,00, supply price of 35,636,363, tax amount of 3,563,637, respectively, to L Co., Ltd.

F.O, who worked as the head of department at the time G, requested the Plaintiff to supply the instant cosmetics in order to enter the cosmetics distribution business, and the Plaintiff was unable to make the Plaintiff to supply the goods to China, and requested the goods to distribute the instant cosmetics in the market other than the Hong Kong market. The first order 10,00, but the first order 10,000, the first one-lane 5,000, the first transaction with the Plaintiff was suspended, and the unit price was increased due to the suspension of transaction with the Plaintiff. The said cosmetics were supplied to the three services companies following the supply of the said cosmetics, requesting that they sell them to the Chinese, Hong Kong market, and the Chinese and Hong Kong market.