1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation as to this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or deletion as mentioned below 2, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that is removed or deleted shall be deleted from 10 to 15 on the same side of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part that is removed or deleted shall be removed from 12 on the same side, and the item number of 16 on the same side shall be referred to as “C”).

The 2nd sentence to 19th sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows.

In the process of receiving support reports from participants, the defendant gave additional points to the submission of promotional videos, and in the first selection process, the defendant allocated five points to the additional points of promotional video items.

However, the participants received additional points with respect to the promotional video of the promotional video of the participants, including 2, 3, and 5 points, and there are cases where the participants submitted promotional video of the participants but did not receive additional points.

(A) Nos. 40-1 and 2). In light of the above, the defendant does not uniformly give five additional points to all participants who submitted promotional videos, and it seems that the defendant gives different points (including zero points) by evaluating the degree of loyalty, etc. of the relevant motion pictures, and it cannot be said that such measures by the defendant are unfair.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded that the defendant omitted the evaluation of the plaintiff's promotional videos or the points of the evaluation, and the possibility that the defendant decided not to grant additional points as a result of the evaluation cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the instant selection procedure cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive additional points following the submission of promotional videos.

Unlike this, even if the Plaintiff should have received 5 additional points from the submission of the motion picture, the Plaintiff’s 41.5 points obtained by adding 5 points to 46.