2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On January 17, 2011, Plaintiff A entered into an agreement with Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant F (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on the same terms and conditions as the instant agreement, and entered into between Defendant B and Defendant B, and Defendant B, and paid KRW 20 million with the Defendants on the same terms and conditions as that of the instant agreement, and paid KRW 10,000 with the Defendants on April 23, 201, under the agreement that the said Plaintiff established exclusive branches within the designated area and operated its business (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Plaintiff B paid KRW 10,000,000 with the amount. Plaintiff B paid KRW 100,000 with the Defendants on the same terms and conditions as that of the instant agreement with Defendant B and Defendant F (hereinafter “Defendant F”), and paid KRW 20,000,000 with the Defendants on the same terms and conditions as that of the instant agreement with the Defendants Company 301,000,000,000 won.

B. Defendant G is the copyright holder of the instant teaching material.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number if there is a tentative number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) is that the defendant diesel scenario did not supply the teaching materials under the instant agreement.

Defendant A set up a separate distribution company (NRC) and supplied teaching materials to individual consumers who are not the Plaintiffs, and Defendant G entered into a dual contract (copyright sharing contract) with NonNC companies, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ monopoly rights.

Defendant F is a co-contractor of the instant arrangement, and Defendant B’s diesel scenarios.