beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she received planning from the Defendant’s employees C by e-mail, and entered into an agreement with the Defendant’s team leader D on December 1, 2015 with the Defendant’s office on January 19, 2016 on the “E” program produced by the Defendant and broadcasted in China (hereinafter “instant program”). Specifically, the Plaintiff contributed F, an artist belonging to the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff in the program “E” program produced by the Defendant and broadcasted in China (hereinafter “instant program”). Specifically, the Plaintiff took charge of the instant program’s proceeding into force in Korea, ② the F takes a total of 12 minutes, and prepares a written contract for each video recording twice a total of 12 minutes, and ③ the amount of contribution was recorded twice a broadcast once, and each contract was concluded with the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 for each broadcast amounting to 60,000 won.
In accordance with this contract, the Plaintiff: (a) on January 23, 2016, and on January 24, 2016, caused F to complete the instant program 1 and 2 parts of video recording; and (b) the Defendant did not pay a contribution fee.
Therefore, the Defendant primarily sought the two-minutes contribution fee of KRW 120,000 per broadcast under the above contract, and the interest for delay or delay thereof, and sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above money that the Defendant received without any legal cause, as the conjunctive contribution of F.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant excluded the plaintiff's artist F from China at the request of Chinese G Limited Company (hereinafter "China Limited Company") and allowed F to contribute to the program in this case. However, regarding F's contribution, the plaintiff and China Company entered into a direct contract with respect to F's contribution, and the defendant is not a party to the above contract.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is a party to the above contract is without merit.
2. According to the written evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and 12, the author “C” has to the head of the Plaintiff’s H office.