1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part of “1. Basic Facts” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part is cited as it includes summary language under the main sentence

[Revision] From 10th to 14th of the first instance judgment, the first instance court's 10th to 14th of the first instance judgment is as follows.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against R and H as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and G as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation). The plaintiff filed a complaint against H on November 18, 2014, and each non-prosecution disposition against R and G was issued on April 28, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants for the crime of occupational breach of trust on June 19, 2018, which was not a disposition of non-prosecution. On September 2, 2019, the order of re-investigation was issued to Defendant B, C, and E on June 19, 2018, and as a result, on September 2, 2019, each of the charges was taken against Defendant B and C.

Part 10 of the judgment of the first instance court is "Nos. 1 through 5, 12, 13, and 20 of the judgment of the first instance" with "Nos. 1 through 5, 12, 13, 20, 25, and 26 of the judgment of the first instance."

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted in violation of the Plaintiff’s duties and did not supply the instant product to I or L with the authority to sell the instant product in Japan in accordance with the instant four multilateral sales contract.

In addition, Defendant E entered into a deposit contract with a warehouse business entity that is S in the participation of the remaining Defendants and rejected Plaintiff E’s request for the transfer of possession of the instant product while controlling and managing the instant product, thereby preventing the instant product from being sold to the expiration of the distribution period.

피고들의 위와 같은 공동불법행위로 인해 원고는 11,680,830,471원{≒ 기지급 선급금 25억 원 이 사건 제품의 폐기로 인한 손해 7,365,028,548원(≒ 총 96,768세트 ×...