The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff: (a) around January 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to transmit the program, including the transmission of commercial broadcast advertising (not less than three times of re-transmission) between the Defendant and C, and entered into a fee transmission agreement for broadcast program with the Defendant to pay KRW 2.5 million (Additional No. 2500,000). Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a broadcast program production agreement, broadcast program contribution agreement, program cooperation agreement, etc. with the agency and cooperative; (b) the Defendant not only did not transmit all the advertisement differently from the content of the contract at the time of the relevant broadcast (five minutes), but also did not send all the re-broadcasting (15 minutes). This constitutes “a violation of the contract without justifiable grounds” as stipulated in the instant contract; (c) the Plaintiff’s violation of the Defendant’s contract at KRW 125,50,000,000 (85,000,000 won per production cost, KRW 450,500,000).

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for paid forwarding of a broadcast program (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant from March 2, 2017 to May 18, 2017, with the content that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to send the program 12 times on the D channel operated by the Defendant and the Defendant from March 2, 2017 to May 18, 2017, and agreed to pay the program 2,500,000 won per program forwarding fee to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) may be acknowledged by taking into account the entire purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraph 1, without any dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of the pleading. However, as to whether the Plaintiff agreed to send commercial advertising in the course of entering into the instant contract with the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 8 (including the serial number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on this premise is without merit.

If so,