A. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to make an investment of KRW 750 million (hereinafter “instant investment money”) in the exhibitions planned and produced by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant exhibitions”) and the Defendant’s “D” (hereinafter “D”) and paid the said investment money to the Defendant around that time.

B. The Defendant received investments from various companies, including the Plaintiff, and held the instant exhibition in the E Memorial, and completed the exhibition on September 30, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the amount of the instant investment would be returned to the Plaintiff, although the Defendant could not make a settlement of the profit because it did not generate profit from the instant exhibition.

Although the repayment schedule of the instant investment deposit was changed several times, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 28,125,00 to the Plaintiff on June 17, 2016, in installments, the remainder of KRW 721,875,000 shall be paid five times in total, and the payment shall be completed until February 10, 2017.

On June 17, 2016, the defendant paid 28,125,000 won to the plaintiff and did not pay the remaining money until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 721,875,000 won which the defendant had not been paid to the plaintiff as of the date following the due date of each installment agreement with respect to the amount agreed upon by the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 11, 2017 to October 24, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

As to this, the defendant alleged that he did not have any profit accrued from the exhibition of this case, and thus, he did not have an obligation to pay the investment money. However, the plaintiff's claim is raised.