1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 51,800,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from October 14, 2017 to November 1, 2018.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The facts in the separate sheet as to the cause of the claim are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the separate sheet No. 1-5, or there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff as not receiving the payment of the contract amount of this case and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

B. At the time of the instant agreement on the Defendant’s defense, the gist of the Defendant’s defense of non-performance (A) defense was to secure at least 30 million won of monthly paid insurance premium and at least 100 subordinate designers within one year. The Plaintiff agreed to suspend the Defendant’s support on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff secured at least 100 subordinate designers; and (b) the Plaintiff secured at least 100 subordinate designers.

However, since the Plaintiff did not have paid the monthly payment of KRW 30 million or more, the Plaintiff did not agree to suspend the payment of KRW 35% income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff instead of paying KRW 48,370,000 on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to retire.

B) As examined below, the defendant did not clearly dispute the facts that the plaintiff paid 48,370,000 won on behalf of the plaintiff, but it is difficult to view that the facts and the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 alone attached the conditions as alleged by the defendant to the agreement in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant suspended assistance due to non-performance of the plaintiff's conditions. Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense of resignation is without merit. 2) The defendant recovered the total amount of the subsidies already paid in cases where the defendant was dismissed before the last dismissal, according to the summary of the C branch office's remuneration rules, according to the summary of the defense of resignation (a) the defendant's defense of resignation is without merit. However, the plaintiff's total amount of subsidies already paid was 23 months or more of total 24 months, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated