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

purport, purport, and.

A. The Plaintiffs are those engaged in the same kind of translation and interpretation service business under the trade name “D” at Osan City.

The defendant is a person engaged in the production of each broadcast program with the trade name of "E" at the original city, and the name of "G".

B. On December 8, 2015, F entered into a contract with H limited liability companies located in China (hereinafter “H”) for the production of a broadcast program with H’s investment in the production cost and the F’s production of music ice shock (hereinafter “instant program”).

C. The Plaintiffs, from January 18, 2016 to March 30 of the same month, performed the translation work of the instant program, and issued a tax invoice claiming KRW 10,122,750 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant on January 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs concluded a translation service contract of approximately KRW 20,000,000 for the instant program with F and the Defendant via Nonparty I.

The plaintiffs, F, and the defendant agreed to bear KRW 10,122,750 out of the above translation amount, and accordingly, the plaintiffs issued the above tax invoice to the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the above KRW 10,122,750 as well as damages for delay from February 1, 2016, which is the day immediately following the agreed payment date.

B. The Defendant Plaintiffs concluded a translation service contract with F through I, a general manager of the production of the program.

The Defendant received KRW 230,00,000 from F for the production cost of the instant program and executed the funds to related persons, including the Plaintiffs, according to F’s specific instructions. Upon F’s request, only the Defendant issued the Plaintiffs’ tax invoice under the name of F.

The plaintiffs are F or I.