A. 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

G Employment Specialized Schools (hereinafter referred to as “instant schools”)

(2) At the time of 2014, Defendant D was the representative director of the Defendant Company, Defendant E was the managing director of the instant school, and Defendant F was the overall manager of the said school. Defendant F was the head of the same school and was in charge of questioning students, parents, etc. who were seeking to enter school or wishing to enter school.

3 Plaintiff A, around February 15, 2014, was a person who applied for the recruitment of new students of aviation class curriculum in the instant school in 2014, and Plaintiff B was the mother of Plaintiff A.

B. The instant school recruited new students in 2014, and expressed “the success of graduates in the employment of all the graduates” and “the possibility of 100% employment as an aeronautical pilot after graduation of the aeronautical lighting department” in the instant school’s guidance materials.

C. On February 2, 2014, Plaintiff A sought from the person in charge of the guidance for entering the instant school, “e-mail” on the part of the person in charge of the guidance for entering the school of this case, to what extent the number or proportion of actual graduates who entered the school of this case is a certain degree, employment rate of 10% is fixed, not the university of this case but the school of this case is subject to a bachelor’s academic certificate of the Lifelong Education Credit Bank System, not the university of this case, and most of the airlines upon graduation of the flight department, etc...” On February 3, 2014. Defendant F: (a) “The aviation class department of this case was history of about 10 years for the aviation class department of this case; and (b) 30% to 30% to 10% to 10% to 10% to 10% to 10% to 10% to 200 military officer officers.

The instant school is a specialized school, and there is no disadvantage that the file is multiple.