1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of the subsequent order for payment is ancillary to Defendant B.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning by the court is as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim Plaintiff trusted the first and second written confirmation issued by Defendant D and entered into a contract with Defendant B. The instant postage stamp business that the Plaintiff continued while posting the instant published official land for infringement.

Defendant D was aware or could have known that a subsequent contract related to the postage stamp business will be used, but did not follow the procedure for verifying the first and second written confirmations of this case to the affiliated company of I, without undergoing the procedure for verifying the first and second written confirmations.

In addition, even though Defendant B and Defendant C knew or could have known that it is impossible to carry out the postage stamp business in Japan, they trusted only the issuance of the first and second confirmations from Defendant D without sufficient consultation or review of I’s portrait rights, and concluded the second distribution contract by deceiving the Plaintiff in an unlawful manner without securing I’s portrait rights.

Inasmuch as such act of the Defendants committed common cause, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred due to the suspension of the postage stamps business in this case.

B. Although Defendant B agreed to guarantee the Plaintiff’s portrait right related to the postage stamp business in Japan through the second distribution contract, Defendant B’s restitution of the ancillary claim and the liability for damages was suspended due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the instant postage stamp business.

Defendant B is liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the suspension of the postage stamp business in this case due to nonperformance of obligation or warranty liability.

The second distribution contract was cancelled due to the delivery of the statement of reasons for appeal in which the filing of the lawsuit in this case or the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel was stated.