2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

A. The Plaintiff is an intention to operate the Csantegian.

The defendant is a juristic person operating software development business, etc., and the fetus ultra-wave video service under the name of "D" (hereinafter referred to as "the ultra-wave video service in this case").

B. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of the instant ultra-wave video service (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 2 (1) The Defendant provides the Plaintiff and the members of D with stable services during the contract period. (2) The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant monthly operating cost of KRW 369,600 (including six units x 61,600, additional taxes) including A/S, network user fee, server user fee, and card (f code) necessary for the operation of D’s system each month.

Article 3 The term of the contract shall be five years from the date of the contract, and shall be automatically extended on an annual basis if the plaintiff and the defendant have no objection after the termination of the contract.

Article 4 (3) When the Plaintiff unilaterally terminates the contract, the Defendant may suspend the primary video service that was provided to its members by giving up all the rights to the “D” system.

In addition, it is not possible to request the return of the settlement amount, and the monthly operating expenses for the remaining number of months of the contract period shall be paid as penalty.

C. The instant ultra-wave video service is linked to the Plaintiff’s ultra-wave video transmission equipment, which is installed in the Plaintiff hospital, with the fetus’s ultra-wave video images taken by the Plaintiff at the time of treatment.

By video transmission, the Defendant’s server is stored in the form of electromagnetic wave, and the Plaintiff’s mother, the patient, installed the application to provide the Defendant’s cell phone, and then access the Defendant’s server to view the fetus’s ultra-wave video.

The plaintiff is the defendant from November 28, 2016.