1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant’s KRW 65,436,832 and 1 as to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016.

1. As to “the Defendant’s obligation to pay the Defendant’s contribution fee, its amount, and whether the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment” cited in the judgment of the first instance is identical to that indicated in paragraphs 1 through 3(a) of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following details subsequent to the sixth eightth of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

Even if “E, etc. has made a contribution without specific agreement on the amount of the contribution fee for the New Year, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the adequate contribution fee for “E, etc. exceeds the amount the Defendant is the person who is the Defendant,” and there is no other evidence otherwise. In particular, in light of the following: ① the content of conversation between Q and P, and K; ② the level of the contribution fee for other distribution that the Defendant colored at the time; ③ the content and character of the drama; ③ the proportion of the distribution in the Drama; the degree of recognition of the distribution; the degree of recognition of the distribution; and the degree of estimated viewing rate; and the degree of budget of the Dra manufacturer, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was an agreement on the contribution fee exceeding the above amount; or that the Defendant obtained unjust profits.”

2. Period during which the State is liable to pay contributions;

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that “the Defendant’s fulfillment of the obligation to pay the contribution is the closing day of the instant drama,” and the Defendant asserts that “this obligation is an obligation with no fixed due date.”

B. 1) Determination 1) If the time limit for the performance of the obligation against either of the parties to the transaction exists, it is presumed that there exists the same time as to the other party’s performance of the obligation (Article 585 of the Civil Act), and the above provision is also applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant contribution contract, which is a compensatory contract (Article 567 of the Civil Act). The time limit for performance of the “Plaintiff’s obligation to contribute to the Defendant” under Article 567 of the Civil Act shall be the closing

(1) A long-term period of time is extended according to the Defendant’s instruction without receiving any contribution fee from the Plaintiff or E.