A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of producing advertisements, vicariously advertising, etc., and the Defendant is a company that engages in the sales agency business, etc., and C limited liability company (hereinafter “C”) is a company that newly constructs and sells an “E” hotel on the D ground at Jeju.

B. On May 31, 2016, C entered into a sales agency contract with the Defendant to delegate the sales of the said hotel to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”) (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”), and the Defendant entered into an advertising agency contract with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2016, with the content that the Defendant entrusted the advertising business for sales of the said hotel to the Plaintiff on the part of performing the business under the sales agency contract in the instant case.

(hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”). C.

From around that time, while the Plaintiff provided advertising services to the Defendant pursuant to the instant advertising agency contract, the Plaintiff suspended advertising services upon receiving a request from the Defendant on November 201, 2016 when the termination of the instant sales agency contract between C and the Defendant was at issue.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for the claim;

A. After the conclusion of the instant advertising agency contract, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the advertising service in accordance with the instant advertising agency contract from the time of November 2016. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 74,569,00 for the first service cost as of November 2, 2016, and KRW 189,431,00 for the second service cost agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the part during which the instant advertising agency contract was concluded, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Since the instant advertising agency contract was interrupted due to the Defendant’s unilateral reason, the Defendant is normally liable to the Plaintiff for damages arising from nonperformance.