1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 94,345,752 and 12% per annum from March 4, 2015 to March 23, 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts indicated in the reasons for the claim can be acknowledged in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers).

B. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed rate of 12% per annum from March 4, 2015 to March 23, 2015, which is the day following the service date of the notice of termination of the contract in this case, plus the amount of advance payment of KRW 100 million and the value-added tax, and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum from March 24, 2015 to September 30, 2015, as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from March 24, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of distributing the second Washington, the Plaintiff did not comply with public relations cooperation, and even if three months have not elapsed since the second Washington was sold, the Plaintiff was notified of unilateral termination without submitting settlement data. The Defendant determined that part of the contract provisions may be modified according to consultation under Article 10 of the instant contract, and that the content of the contract was modified by the Defendant’s request for re-consultation, and thus, there was no obligation to return advance payment.

B. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement of Eul evidence No. 1 alone is changed by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim