1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 1,107,190, Plaintiff B’s KRW 1,000,000, and each of the said money, the Defendant began on November 7, 2015.

1. Part on the claim for indemnity

A. On March 201, Plaintiff A agreed to hold a “F photographic Exhibitions” from October 25, 201 to 30 days from the Defendant’s 150 point of photographic works taken by Defendant E, the president of the Defendant and the incorporated association, who is a photo artist, for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant would hold the “F photographic Exhibitions” (hereinafter “instant exhibitions”).

For the above exhibition, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to purchase the liquid materials in advance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased the liquid materials of KRW 21,534,370 from June to October 201, 201 and produced the liquid materials.

However, plagiarism or synthetic suspicions were raised about the Defendant’s photographic works and the holding of the instant exhibition was revoked, which is a tort committed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff or a breach of the contract entered into with the Plaintiff E.

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 21,534,370 for the material cost, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount of material cost to the Plaintiff.

B. Each of the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 12-14, 26, and 27 are to hold the instant exhibition on or around March 201 by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and E, and the Plaintiff agreed to pre-production the liquid amount in advance, and then the Defendant paid the liquid amount.

or, the above exhibition was not attributable to the defendant on the part of the defendant.

It is insufficient to conclude that the Plaintiff suffered damage equivalent to the claimed amount, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

[each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 24 and 28 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

According to the statements and images in Eul evidence 4, around April 2010, the defendant and Eul agreed to hold a photo exhibition with the defendant's photograph from March 22, 2011 to March 31, 2011, and purchased 80 percent of the defendant's photograph from April 2010 to February 2011, but the defendant purchased 80 percent of the defendant's photograph. However, the above exhibition continued to be postponed and eventually, the plaintiff and Eul are the liquid manufacturer.