1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination as to the defendant’s assertion as set forth in the following

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the violation of Articles 5(2) and 18(1) of the contract of this case is against the contract of this case, since the plaintiffs do not participate in local performances at the plaintiffs' request, the defendant asserts that there is no ground for contract violation under Articles 5(2) and 18(1) of the contract of this case, i.e., "voluntary establishment of schedule or conclusion of performance contract" or that the situation of the violation was corrected ex post facto.

However, as seen earlier, the defendant arbitrarily concluded a contract for local performance in China with five months without prior consultation with the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs refused it and did not participate in the local performance in China. The fact that the defendant excluded the plaintiffs from the local performance in China at the request of the plaintiffs does not have any evidence to acknowledge it (In light of the record, it is apparent in the record that the defendant raised a counterclaim in the first instance trial and alleged that the failure of the plaintiffs to participate in the performance in China constitutes grounds for termination of contract, and the defendant seems to have not consented to the end of the non-participation of the plaintiffs in China). The defendant's assertion in this part is not acceptable.

B. The Defendant alleged the violation of Article 6(1) of the instant contract: (a) delivered the settlement data requested by the Plaintiffs to the Plaintiffs around April 24, 2018; (b) there was no separate agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on the deadline for providing the data; and (c) it was impossible for the Defendant to provide the settlement data before April 24, 2018; and (d) the Defendant copies and copies of the data or documents related to the Plaintiff’s entertainment activities as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the instant contract.