1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 66,00,000 with full payment from August 17, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2012, the Plaintiff (the trade name was “Stock Company B” and changed to the current trade name around August 2013) concluded a game propagation and distribution contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the online game “D” (hereinafter “D”) developed by the Chinese company between the Defendant (hereinafter “instant game”) and the Chinese company around September 2012, as a company aimed at the manufacture, sale, development of software, singing, and distribution of Onnuri games (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows: (a) if the Defendant offered the instant game to the Plaintiff as a holder of the domestic sales right of the instant game, the Plaintiff paid USD 115,00 in three installments as the basic price for the instant game; and (b) if the Plaintiff’s game site, etc. operated by the Plaintiff’s game site makes profits by pressing and distributing the instant game, 27% of the monthly net profit shall be paid as a discount royalty.

C. Pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 66 million once of the basic consideration to the Defendant on April 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through Gap 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. 1) The Defendant, upon the conclusion of the contract of this case, delayed the provision of a basic plaque of the game of this case, failed to rectify and develop errors in the game of this case, and failed to accurately ascertain whether the game of this case is held with the right to purchase the game of this case, making it impossible to do so. As such, the Plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case through a preparatory document dated October 21, 2014, and sought a return of KRW 66 million, which was paid to the Defendant due to restitution to its original state. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had the right to purchase the game of this case within the Republic of Korea.