1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, M, T, U, M, X, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AG, AI, and AI.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a copyright holder of the literary works of “AP”, “AP”, and “AR” (hereinafter referred to as “instant copyrighted works”).

The Defendants, without the consent of the Plaintiff, who is a copyright holder, on the date and non-date of 201, are as follows: (a) a file format (htp:/filelelele.com); (b) a Saturday; (c) an known file (htp:/www.alftilt); (d) a web-site; (b) a hard file; (c) a digital hard file; (d) a digital hard file (w.inomter.co.com); (htp:/www.co.m.com; (htp); (w) a greenhouse disc; (w) a greenhouse disc; (w) a hot disc; (wttp://www.co.co.m.com); (w) a file box; and (wttp:/www/www.m.com) a file box; and (wttp:/www.m.com); and (wwgaz. co. (www) a digital set.

The work files of this case were published so that an unspecified number of people could enjoy a download by consuming a certain point.

The defendants are the defendants.

With respect to the act described in the paragraph, the prosecution was subject to a disposition such as the summary form, suspension of indictment on condition of copyright education, rejection (Dismissal in accordance with the guidelines for handling minor copyright infringement crimes) as shown in the attached Table of the Copyright Act.

【Defendant Qu, R, T, Y, AD, AD, AE, AE, AG, AI, AK, AL, and N: There is no dispute over the remaining Defendants: each entry of evidence (including the number of pages) in Article 150(3)(i) of the Civil Procedure Act; and (ii) ex officio as to the requirements for ex officio determination of whether the entire purport of the pleading is legitimate; and (iii) the Defendants’ act of infringing the Plaintiff’s property right to the instant work was actually or legally caused by the same cause. Thus, the instant lawsuit is lawful as a lawsuit satisfying the requirements for co-litigation.

Defendant I filed a co-litigation against multiple Defendants for the purpose of demanding so-called so-called “argument money,” thereby resulting in a small case against each Defendant, under the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel.