A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company that operates the “FAD”) as a specialized driving school at the time of university admission, and provides the dynamic image lecture with a fee via the “E” on the Internet homepage. 2) Defendant B is an instructor who has followed the lecture of the subject of education on the private teaching institute and on the Internet from 2004 to 204.

Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) has been engaged in the business of producing and providing educational contents, such as teaching service, dynamic images, etc., and Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”) as a company engaging in publishing and printing business, and mainly engaged in the business of producing and supplying educational contents, such as teaching materials related to Defendant B’s lectures and motion pictures.

B. On December 21, 2010, Defendant B entered into an educational content supply agreement with the remaining Defendants on February 24, 201, respectively, and provided the Plaintiff with educational contents, such as Defendant B’s lecture image, etc. since that time. (2) Defendant B, who directly employs human resources or entrusted a marketing enterprise with the marketing enterprise, requested correction of any sign language or instructor, or made a criminal charge, and made efforts to correct the erroneous practices of the Internet lecture industry, which are able to provide information distorted to the students as to certain instructors, such as organizing a “J organization,” focusing on instructors who share with the aim of eradicating comments.

3) Meanwhile, around December 2010, the Plaintiff also conducted self-inspection of the act of writing comments in accordance with the aforementioned purport. On December 10, 2011, the Plaintiff, as an intermediary of Defendant B, intended not to do an act of writing comments on the face of face-to-face between the parties concerned. C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants’ conclusion of exclusive contracts and their implementation status 1).