A. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Debtor Rehabilitation, Ltd. (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Debtor”) entered into an online content development agreement on October 8, 2014. The main content is that if the Plaintiff developed online lecture content within one year and provides it to the rehabilitation debtor, the rehabilitation debtor pays the service price of KRW 90 million (excluding value-added tax). The down payment is 10% of the total service price within 15 days after the contract is concluded, and the remainder is paid within 15 days after the completion of development of each course.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

By July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff provided services equivalent to KRW 78,100,00, including down payment, after completing the development of some of the four courses and one course of course. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the rehabilitation debtor seeking payment of service charges on July 14, 2015.

C. However, as of October 23, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma100254 decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings for the rehabilitation debtor (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”), the Plaintiff reported the instant service payment claim to “the instant service payment claim” in the instant rehabilitation procedures as “one-five percent interest rate per annum prior to commencement,” and the Defendant recognized the principal amount of KRW 78,100,000,000 on the ground that there was no agreement on interest payment.

Accordingly, the plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to the defendant, who is an objection, to seek confirmation of the rehabilitation claim from the service cost claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)interest; or