1. Each supervisory contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 24, 2014 and the Plaintiff’s down payment amounting to KRW 20 million based on each main contract.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production of a film with the Defendant and “B” (hereinafter “B film”) and each main contract for the production of each film (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”). At that time, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 20 million in total as down payment under each of the instant contracts by the Defendant each of the instant contracts.

B. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated each of the instant contracts, and drafted a written agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

1. The contract and each contract for the supervision of motion pictures entered into on March 24, 2014 shall be terminated for plos cases and A films;

2. A films shall be paid to Puws cases total of KRW 10 million under a supervisory contract concluded on March 24, 2014, and KRW 10 million under each this contract, if a film is produced within five years.

3. Where a motion picture is not produced within five years, a film A does not pay a total of 20 million won to a plos case.

4.This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of conclusion.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff return KRW 20 million according to the instant agreement, inasmuch as the Plaintiff is preparing for the production of a film through the content certification as of October 17, 2016, November 1, 2016, and December 13, 2016.

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

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not produce a motion picture at present, and there is no room to apply Paragraph 2 of the Agreement to the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay KRW 20 million. Thus, the non-existence of the obligation under Paragraph 1 of the Disposition is sought.

B. (1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, denies the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the claim first, the defendant as the creditor.