beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 590,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 26, 2012 to April 9, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is an entertainment planning company whose main business is entertainment agency, etc., and the defendant is an artist.
B. On February 16, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an exclusive agreement with the purport that the Defendant shall delegate the Plaintiff the exclusive management authority for all the activities the Defendant is acting as a postponed and that the Plaintiff shall exercise the exclusive management authority upon delegation (hereinafter “instant exclusive agreement”).
C. The instant exclusive contract: (i) the term of the contract is from February 16, 201 to February 15, 2014 (Article 13(1)); (ii) the Plaintiff provides the Defendant with various support, such as the provision of education for entertainment activities, contract negotiation, contract negotiation, contribution negotiation, publicity and advertisement (Article 4(1)); (iii) the Defendant shall not unreasonably reverse the instant exclusive contract (Article 5(5)); (iv) the Plaintiff bears all expenses incurred in the Defendant’s entertainment activities; and (v) the Plaintiff and the Defendant divide the profits from the Defendant’s entertainment activities into the rate of 40:60 (Article 7); (v) the other party, if the Plaintiff or the Defendant violated the instant exclusive contract, must first set a grace period of 14 days against the offender and demand correction thereof; and (v) the other party, if the violation is not corrected within the said period, may cancel or terminate the contract and claim damages (Article 17(1)4).
On August 28, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of termination of the instant exclusive contract (hereinafter “instant termination notice”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff breached its duty to support the business activities, such as providing education necessary for entertainment activities, on behalf of the Defendant.
Accordingly, on August 30, 2008, the Plaintiff continued to maintain the instant exclusive agreement, but the Defendant did not refuse to work and therefore, the instant exclusive agreement.