1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount ordering payment.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the first instance court’s “second round” in the first instance judgment No. 4 is as “2, third round”; (b) the “third round” in the third round is as “4, 5 times”; (c) the “fourth round” is as “six times”; (d) the “five times” is as “seven times”; and (e) the “five times immediately after the second public performance” in the first round is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except that the “after the second public performance” in the second and third public performance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Grounds for the parties’ claims

A. The reasoning of this part of the ground for appeal by the court is as stated in Paragraph 2, which is the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the ground for appeal by the plaintiff is identical to the part of the "a. the plaintiff's argument".

B. 1) The Plaintiff declared that he would cancel the instant performance on the day immediately before the rescission of the instant performance contract (the second and third performances) and expressed his intent to refuse performance. The Defendant expressed his intent to cancel the instant performance contract on December 21, 2015, immediately after the performance of the Oscar. Accordingly, the instant performance contract was lawfully rescinded. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the remainder of KRW 172,857,142, excluding the portion relating to the performance that was already undertaken before the rescission of the instant performance contract, among the basic openings received from the Defendant, to the Defendant (the Defendant claimed the return of the entire basic draft of the performance from the first instance court to its original state, but the Defendant declared that he would immediately cancel the performance contract, thereby violating the instant performance contract).

Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for damages due to nonperformance by the Defendant. KRW 213,485,019, which is equivalent to the Defendant’s expenses incurred in planning and holding a performance of this case, = 88,00,000.