1. The appeal as to the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim claim extended by this court is dismissed, respectively.

2...

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance [the part on the basis of the judgment of the court of first instance]. Thus, this part of the basic facts, including abbreviations, is cited under the main sentence of Article 4

2. The Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, sought confirmation of the non-existence of the validity of the exclusive contract by asserting that the exclusive contract of this case was terminated by the instant written notification as the Plaintiff’s lawful termination of the contract under the instant written notification (the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment), and the period of the exclusive contract of this case, in itself, withdrawn the principal lawsuit in this court, following the lapse of

However, this part is a premise for judgment on the counterclaim claim, and it is examined whether the termination of the exclusive contract of this case by the instant notification is legitimate.

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion (1) The defendant did not provide the plaintiff with a single opportunity to raise an objection against the settlement of accounts. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not receive an opportunity to raise an objection against the settlement of accounts.

The Defendant’s act violated the obligation to provide settlement data under Article 12(7) and (8) of the instant exclusive contract or the obligation to provide data related to entertainment activities under Article 6(1).

On February 3, 2016 and February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to perform its duty to provide settlement data, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant exclusive agreement by using the instant notification only 14 days since the Defendant did not comply therewith.

(2) In light of its nature, the instant exclusive agreement ought to be deemed an essential element to maintain high trust between the contracting parties, as well as to achieve the purpose of the agreement.

However, the defendant violated the obligations under the Public Culture Industry Act, such as the duty to prepare, keep and disclose accounting books, violated the duty to explain financial and financial status, distorted the accounting and financial status, and the representative director has shown a negative attitude.