1. As to KRW 50,00,000 and KRW 25,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from November 30, 2015 to January 14, 2016.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments described in Gap's 1-6, 7-1, 7-2, 8, and 9 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a cooperative established for the purpose of media planning advertising, etc., and the defendant on October 15, 2015, the plaintiff was engaged in the advertising agency business between the defendant and the defendant on October 15, 2015, and in return, the plaintiff was engaged in the advertising agency business for the Busan Seabrates Project, and entered into an advertising agency contract for the amount of KRW 25 million at the end of November 2015, and KRW 25 million at the end of December 2015 (A2). Accordingly, the plaintiff is found to have performed the advertising agency business under the above contract.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above advertising agency fee of KRW 50,00,000 and KRW 25,00,000 among them, 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from November 30, 2015 to January 14, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as to the remaining KRW 25,00,000, which is the due date, from December 31, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff could not pay the above service price because it was advertised without the defendant's approval, although it was approved by the defendant, it was not possible to do so. However, according to each of the statements in Gap 6, 8, and 9, the plaintiff notified the advertisement schedule to the defendant's side (A chief) who is the contractor of the two construction and implementation company of the two industry and agreed on the opinion. In addition, the plaintiff claimed the service price to the defendant after completing the advertisement agency business, and the defendant's side can receive the payment from the two industries.