1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts the cause of the claim as follows. A. The plaintiff asserts the cause of the claim in this case.

On December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an entertainment agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) that provides that “the Plaintiff shall act as the Plaintiff’s player agent, and the Plaintiff shall pay a certain percentage of its revenues to Nonparty Co., Ltd. as transfer fee.”

B. In 2013, the Plaintiff had been working in the Don-gu Sin-gu Pool.

However, as the Defendant did not ask the Plaintiff’s intent and transferred it to E (hereinafter “E”), the Plaintiff had no choice but to act in E in the PP in 2014.

C. On January 1, 2014, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff that “a bank account is opened and the Defendant informed of KRW 300 million deposited in the account.”

On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 300 million from E in the account opened by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 300 million in the F’s account on January 13, 2014 according to the Defendant’s instructions.

On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100 million from E in the said Plaintiff’s account. The Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 100 million into the Defendant’s account on January 28, 2014 according to the Defendant’s instructions.

The Plaintiff calculated income as to KRW 400 million deposited from E, and subsequently, as such, tried to process and report it as a tax expense along with evidentiary documents. The Defendant requested that “the above KRW 400 million should not be treated as a normal cost,” and that “the above KRW 47,863,072 should be additionally borne by the total amount of global income tax and local income tax based on the income of KRW 400 million.”

E. The defendant has an opportunity to cover KRW 400 million in the course of income return in handling the plaintiff's business in violation of the duty of due care as a good manager under the delegation contract.