2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into an exclusive entertainment agreement with the Defendant, who operates the entertainment planning company (hereinafter “instant exclusive entertainment agreement”), and around that time, Plaintiff A paid USD 80,700 to the Defendant as a contract bond.

B. On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff B entered into an exclusive entertainment agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant exclusive entertainment agreement”) and paid 300,000 Malaysia currency to the Defendant as a contract bond around that time.

C. On the other hand, around February 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs expressed the Defendant’s intent to terminate the instant exclusive contract with the Defendant having failed to perform some of the obligations under the instant exclusive contract.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Main assertion 1) The Defendant violated the Defendant’s duty under the First Exclusive Contract of this case, “education duty”, “an obligation to provide food,” “an obligation to prohibit unfair demand for money and goods,” “an obligation to distribute profits, etc.,” and “an obligation to provide money and goods four times a year,” among the Defendant’s obligation under the Second Exclusive Contract of this case, and breached the Defendant’s obligation to provide “education duty”, “an obligation to provide food,” and “an obligation to prohibit unfair demand for money and goods.” As such, on February 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs expressed their intention to terminate each exclusive contract of this case to the Defendant and terminated each of the instant exclusive contract, the Defendant is not obliged to return the contract deposit that the Plaintiffs paid to the Plaintiffs. Since the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 100 million each damages to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant also is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million each with compensation for damages.