On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant to produce the English short language 3D animation, and produced and delivered 3D animation (a service charge of KRW 17,695,00), 33 type (a service charge of KRW 3,300,00), 25 type (a service charge of KRW 2,50,000) in the English short language of 3D animation (a service charge of KRW 17,695,00), and 25 type (a service charge of KRW 2,50,000), but the Defendant paid only the service charge of KRW 23,495,00 in the English short language of 3D (a service charge of KRW 17,695,00,000) to the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff’s claim for the change of the claim from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 2,501,271.27

Since the contract amount of KRW 20,000,000, which includes the contract amount of KRW 23,450,000,000 is sought, it is considered to seek KRW 3,450,000 as the contract amount of KRW 3D in English language.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.

In 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for the production of animation in Korean language with the amount of KRW 8 million per month, and made production for three months and received KRW 24 million from the Defendant.

After that, the plaintiff completed the remaining work by making an additional production for three months, and the defendant agreed to pay the service cost of KRW 20 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

Judgment

In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 of the English short language 3D animation claim, the plaintiff's first unit price is KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000 for each part, and the total service price is KRW 450,000,000,000,000 for the English short language 3D animation using the MAYA against the defendant on April 27, 2014.