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

A. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff (C Co., Ltd.) entered into an exclusive contract with the Defendant with an exclusive management authority over the Defendant’s entertainment activities (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”) by June 16, 2020, with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”). As to the terms and conditions of the contract, the instant exclusive contract was entered into.

B. From September 2015, the Plaintiff produced 11 of the Defendant’s production cost of KRW 8,124,060 to the present day, and announced 10 of them. Under the strategy that the Plaintiff should be exposed to the upper end of the main music source site to enhance the Defendant’s recognition guidance, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the D Company in 2016, and was exposed to the “Mel” theory, a representative music source service, to the upper end of the latest music domain screen.

C. However, around November 28, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff e-mail that the Plaintiff would terminate the instant exclusive contract. Accordingly, on December 14, 2016, the Defendant urged the Defendant to perform the instant exclusive contract by means of content-proof mail. The Defendant sent to the Plaintiff via his agent a certificate of content that “The instant exclusive contract was already terminated, as the trust relationship was interrupted due to the Plaintiff’s unfair rerecording of sound costs and a series of events related thereto, etc.,” and the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to comply with the instant exclusive contract on December 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) Although the Plaintiff faithfully performs its obligations under the instant exclusive agreement, the Defendant violated the contractual terms for the purpose of unilaterally destroying the contract during the contract period.