A. From December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lecture contract with C, and was demoted to the Criminal Law as an instructor belonging to C, and the final contract period of the lecture was until December 31, 2022.

On the other hand, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) merged C on October 4, 2016.

B. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an online criminal law lecture, etc. (hereinafter “instant lecture contract”) with the Defendant providing online criminal law lectures, etc. against the prosecution and police officer’s examination. The key contents are as follows.

Article 2 (Subject Matter of Contract) (1) of the contract for the provision of lectures (subject Matter of Contract) (1) The plaintiff shall directly attend the lecture as a driving school designated by the defendant, and the subjects of lectures shall be public officials in prosecution service, police officers,

(2) The Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with all possible forms of content, such as video content derived from the educational institute designated by the Defendant.

Article 3 (Term of Contract) (1) The term of contract under this Agreement shall be effective for seven years from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2023.

Article 15 (Binding Force Contracts) The Plaintiff does not enter into a contract with the Defendant’s competitor to utilize services identical or similar to this contract through similar media during the term of this contract without the Defendant’s prior consent, and does not directly or indirectly provide support or benefit to a third party in competition with the Defendant.

Article 21 (Penalties, etc.) The Plaintiff confirms that, if the Plaintiff violates the exclusive contract obligations under Article 15, or the contract is terminated or terminated due to any cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the costs of investment in the lecture service and the benefits of anticipated and opportunity will be incurred to the Defendant and the credit and reputation of the Defendant will be seriously damaged.

Accordingly, the plaintiff violates the obligation of exclusive contract under Article 15, or the plaintiff.