1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall be KRW 440,000,000 and the year from December 1, 2015 to January 31, 2019.

1. Determination as to the claim for construction price against Defendant B

A. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, and contrary evidence No. 3 is not believed.

1) On September 2015, the Plaintiff is Defendant B Co., Ltd. (the representative director: Defendant C; hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

2) As between the Defendant and the Defendant, the equipment necessary for the photographing of children’s SFlasma “D” (hereinafter referred to as “the equipment used for the photographing of this case”).

() Construction cost of KRW 500,000 (contract amount of KRW 70,000,000 until September 25, 2015, and KRW 300,000,000 until October 31, 2015, the first intermediate payment of KRW 100,000,000 until November 30, 2015, the second intermediate payment of KRW 3000,000,000 until June 30, 2016, which was the scheduled date for the completion of the remaining drama shooting, and the construction period of KRW 30,00,000,00 until September 30, 2016, which was the scheduled date for the completion of the remaining drama shooting (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). A contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

(2) On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff began to work for the shooting of the instant materials from September 1, 2015, and the said work came to an end at the end by leaving only some painting and lighting work on September 2015.

3) After confirming the form of the set for photographing in this case, the Defendant Company demanded the Plaintiff to remove and transfer the set for photographing in this case at the Plaintiff’s expense as the failure to execute the contract of the Chinese company was made, and the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to remove and transfer the set at the Plaintiff’s expense. Ultimately, on February 17, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of agreement, including the Plaintiff’s direct verification that the set was constructed by the Plaintiff instead of receiving the said request from the Defendants. (B) It is reasonable to deem that the set for photographing in this case was completed on or after the end of September 2015 according to the facts found in the above determination, and therefore, the Defendant Company’s assertion that the set for photographing in this case was completed at the end of September 2015 is not acceptable (see, e.g.,

The defendant company is the case as the plaintiff seeks.