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

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of amusement facility business and theme park development-related business, and has provided play equipment to play parks and shared profits therefrom.

B. The Defendant is operating the play park called “E” at Yangju-si C and D.

C. Around June 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to set up the play equipment in E and distribute its operating profits to the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Plaintiff set up five types of play equipment in E (balking, brailleing, clicking, clicking, and caltoning).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The Defendant agreed to distribute 50% of the sales of the play equipment to the Plaintiff around June 2010, but did not distribute profits to the Plaintiff from June 2010 to June 2016.

Since the Defendant’s sales estimated by the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 729,00,000 per year, the sales amount for the six-year period is KRW 4,374,00,000.

Therefore, pursuant to the above profit distribution agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 claimed by the Plaintiff among the 50% sales from June 2010 to June 2016, as well as the damages for delay from November 24, 2016, asserting that the Defendant terminated the operation of the play machine.

B) Around November 24, 2016, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the Formula 2 (Astru), which is owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,000,000 equivalent to the value of the Formula 2 (the Plaintiff’s damages for tort) and the damages for delay thereof. (2) In lieu of lending KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff due to the cost of installing the play equipment, the Defendant did not distribute profits for five years, but thereafter, set the ratio of distribution by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, taking into account the operational status, but thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were