The defendant's KRW 1,62,500 for each of the plaintiffs and its 5% per annum from April 3, 2019 to July 14, 2020, and the following.

. Facts of recognition.

A. The defendant is an individual who operates a wedding photographing company (hereinafter “Defendant company”).

B. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant to take pictures of the type of marriage (hereinafter “instant contract to take pictures”) with the content as indicated below as follows.

The date and time of wedding: 14:00 on October 6, 2018 - 14:00 (the type of the main food board board board) - 1 Kameras/250,000 won (excluding value-added tax) - The settlement cost of which is 275,000 won - including 30 females of the total original board, 275,000s of the total original board - up to the new unit room, admission compost, original family photographing, and vice photography.

The number of originals shall be sent within 2 to 3 weeks of wedding standards.

* Since strings and liners which are taken as it is in the course of wedding, they are different from rithic tyrology.

** The production equipment on the day is 50,000 won thick on the day.

◎ 계약일반사항 - 고객님의 영상 및 사진은 저희 본사에서 3개월간 저장되니 그 전에 꼭 다운로드하시길 바랍니다.

C. The Plaintiffs paid 275,000 won to the Defendant on June 11, 2018, and 50,000 won to the Defendant’s photographer on October 6, 2018, respectively, according to the instant film agreement.

On October 6, 2018, the defendant company's photographer taken photographs of the plaintiffs' marriage style on the part of the defendant company.

The person in charge of Defendant Company: (a) received the Plaintiff’s marriage compressive file from the photographic author, and opened the said compressed files to D; and (b) sent the said compressed files to the Plaintiffs on October 16, 2018; (c) October 18, 2018; (d) October 20, 2018; and (e) October 23, 2018; and (e) October 23, 2018; (b) however, the Plaintiffs did not receive the said letters.

E. On December 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs asked the Defendant Company at any time whether they can receive the Plaintiff’s marriage photograph files. On the same day, the Defendant Company’s person in charge sent the Plaintiff a text message “A,” stating that “In-house contact thickness” is the same.

Since then, the plaintiff A had no answer from the person in charge of the defendant company, and on January 8, 2019, he is in charge of the defendant company.