1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case are added to the "(55) Meet No. 6 of the first instance judgment," and the "No. 18-19 of the attached Table No. 2 of the same Meet No. 18-19 of the first instance judgment."

'The following:

In addition, the phrase “other than number 12, 14, 22” is added, and the phrase “the Defendant” in Chapter 5 is charged to the Defendant Company as “the Defendant Company.” In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s assertion in the trial are identical to the judgment of the first instance, except for further determination as to the matters alleged in the trial, as described in the following paragraph (2). As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the following circumstances after acquiring neighboring rights to the 55 sound sources of this case pursuant to Article 2 of the transfer contract of this case, D, pursuant to Article 2 of the transfer contract of this case, received the “ neighboring rights” itself from Defendant B with respect to the 55 sound sources of this case (or at least 7 sound sources of this case excluding the 5 sound sources of which marks (0)) under Article 2 of the transfer contract of this case, and only obtained permission for its use.

D Article 2 of the Assignment Contract of this case, which was entered into by Defendant B in the course of settling a partnership business with the Defendant B, stipulates that the 5 sound source of this case is subject to the “transfer right” of Lepha, and among which D is not able to be used for editing purposes, it is only seven sound sources indicated in the table (0).

Article 2 (2) of the above Transfer Agreement provides for "a light music record" with the exception of a musical work. If only the permission of the above 55 musical work holders is granted, anyone can produce a light music record, which is irrelevant to the assignment of neighboring rights.

D having taken over a sound source did not have any reason to produce sound source by excluding other fluencies. However, Defendant B suffered damages when manufacturing a sound source by other fluences. As such, both parties are different.