1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. The fourth, fourth, seventh, and eighth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are used as follows, and the 10th part of the same side “C” is used as “Defendant C”.

(3) (3) The Plaintiff was not able to have the general programming channel and program delivery contract as stipulated in the instant contract. However, on March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff is a stock company L (hereinafter “L”).

B) On March 2017, Defendant B entered into a program production agreement with the content that “K” program will broadcast 12 weeks each week from March 2017, but Defendant B did not pay the remainder amount of KRW 20 million under the contract. However, Defendant B sent L a documentary document image funded by a third party, other than Defendant B, on the ground that Defendant B did not pay the remainder amount of KRW 20 million.

B. Part VII through 18 of the 15th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written as follows.

【 However, the Plaintiff initially received 30 million won in total contract amount from Defendant B, and returned 20 million won upon Defendant B’s request, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to perform the Plaintiff’s contractual obligations even if it received the said KRW 20 million at the time of return, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s allegation.

C. The following shall be added to the 5th page of the first instance judgment.

(3) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff took photographs of the Defendants pursuant to the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 and produced video works, the costs incurred in the production of video works and the amount equivalent to the original cost should be considered as the Plaintiff’s restoration duty.

The contract of this case Nos. 1 and 2 is a kind of contract, the purpose of which is to complete a specific day, and is under the contract.