2. this b.

3.Ec.

4. Maximumd;

5. Kime

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant]

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

(a) Relationship between the Parties;

The defendant is a company with the object of entertainment, etc., and the plaintiffs are members of the "O" group to which the defendant belongs.

B. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff Jeon Soo-a, Leebb, Lee C, and Choiddd, entered into an exclusive contract (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”) with Defendant around May 27, 2014, setting the contract term as five years and setting the contract term with Defendant (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”).

2) According to the instant exclusive contract, the Plaintiffs delegate the exclusive management authority to the Defendant for the activities of popular culture artists. The Defendant exercise the right of management with good faith so that the Plaintiffs can exercise their own talents and capabilities to the greatest extent possible, and endeavor to manage the Plaintiffs’ schedule. The Plaintiffs’ performance of all education or commission for the acquisition or improvement of their abilities necessary for the entertainment activities, planning of the Plaintiffs’ entertainment activities, and all kinds of support duties should be performed.

C. The Defendant was able to use a practice room only for a limited period of time because it was unable to provide the Plaintiffs with an exclusive practice room. On January 2015, the Defendant was forced to leave the practice room due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the practice room user fee, and the cost of living was not paid, and the Defendant was not provided with the twitner and postponed guidance.

2) On February 2015, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the Defendant would terminate the instant exclusive agreement on the grounds that the Defendant did not faithfully perform its obligations with respect to management. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs sent it to the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs failed to receive support for entertainment activities or practice from the defendant, and the defendant seems to have failed to faithfully performed the business of planning and support for entertainment activities of the plaintiffs. In addition, in light of the general characteristics of entertainment exclusive contracts concluded based on high trust relationship between the artist and the planning company, and the plaintiffs and the defendant's obligations (the contract period is five years long, comprehensive, abstract, and exclusive obligations are borne by each other due to the nature of the contract) under the exclusive contract of this case, it seems that the trust relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs was seriously damaged, and it is reasonable to recognize the binding force of the contract.

Therefore, the exclusive contract of this case is legally terminated and no longer effective, and as long as the defendant contests this, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

B. The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs unilaterally terminated the exclusive contract of this case even though the plaintiffs made best efforts to provide the plaintiffs with human and material support necessary for entertainment entertainment and to implement it, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified.

Judges, Chief Judge

Judges of the High Instance