1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 51,00,000 and each of the amounts listed in the amount column in attached Form 1, the Defendant’s initial date of calculation in attached Form 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff displayed art products between the Defendant and the Defendant, and provided the Plaintiff with a duty to introduce and remove art products at the request of the Defendant. The term of the contract was from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015, and the Defendant entered into a service contract to pay KRW 3,000,000 per month to the Plaintiff in return for the service.

B. Around April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff exhibited art works in the Defendant’s WMFs B basin, and the Defendant paid the service payment from April 2013 to October 2013 to the Plaintiff.

C. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendant to pay the unpaid service payment from November 2013.

On March 23, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, by March 31, 2015, a content-certified mail requesting that the art be transferred to another place and the gallon be cut off.

[Ground of recognition] Partial non-contentious facts, entry of Gap evidence 1-2, 3, and Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The fact that a service contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the fact that the Defendant paid up to the service price for October 2013 is as seen earlier.

In addition, in light of the above basic facts, the Defendant did not assert the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the duty to provide services even when sending the content-certified mail to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2015, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the duty to provide services prior to the instant lawsuit, and there is no other evidence regarding the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the duty to provide services, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff performed the duty to provide services within

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay the service payment and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant had three curants permanently reside, but only one curator have been permanently stationed and fulfilled his/her obligation.