1. The Defendant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a public performance planning business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that operates a broadcast program production business, etc., and the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the Defendant on July 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant investment contract”). Under the instant investment contract, the Plaintiff invests KRW 150 million in the Defendant’s planning and development cost of the drama “Enitch” as the program development cost, and the Defendant shall return the total amount of planning and development cost to the Plaintiff by December 12, 2016, if the broadcast program production contract with the broadcasting company on the said drama was not entered into within 12 months from the date of conclusion of the contract for planning and development, and paid damages for delay by 20% per annum. The Defendant did not conclude the aforementioned production contract with the Defendant on July 7, 2016, which was 12 months from the date of conclusion of the contract, or did not conclude the entire production agreement between the parties.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 150 million under the return agreement stipulated in the instant investment contract and the damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the above payment date, to the date of full payment, pursuant to the return agreement stipulated in the instant investment contract.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant determined that the planning and development period may be adjusted according to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the instant investment contract, and that an implied agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant extending the planning and development period.

According to the above evidence, although the above facts are acknowledged under the investment contract of this case, the circumstances cited by the defendant alone are insufficient to deem that such an agreement has been reached, and otherwise, evidence exists to deem such an agreement.