1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,900,000 and KRW 1,400,00 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 22, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to contribute the “C” planned and produced by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant performance”) to the Plaintiff as an internal radar’s role.

According to the above contract, the Plaintiff contributed from August 8, 2017 to October 28, 2017, but paid KRW 300,000 per day per day per public performance, and KRW 500,00 per day per public performance twice a day, respectively, and received KRW 50,00 per day per public performance. The specific payment date was determined on August 8, 2017 as October 10, 2017, respectively.

B. From August 8, 2017 to August 26, 2017, the Defendant held a public performance for four days each week, once a Saturday, and held a public performance for nine days each week from September 2, 2017 to October 28, 2017.

C. From August 8, 2017 to August 26, 2017, the Plaintiff contributed to the instant performance four times in total. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff on August 29, 2017 that he/she was not required to make a contribution to the performance in the future. The Plaintiff did not contribute the Plaintiff present at the event site for contribution on September 2, 2017.

On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant contribution contract due to the Defendant’s rejection of performance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3, Eul evidence 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to contribute the plaintiff to the public performance in this case and pay the payment for the contribution, unless there are special circumstances under the contract of contribution in this case. The plaintiff did not unilaterally contribute to the public performance in this case on the ground that the promotion of the public performance in this case is low, and the contract of contribution in this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination.