1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a contract with C, the representative of the Defendant’s Chinese branch, on the planning of broadcasting programs, and agreed to receive the following money:

- Additional writers related to the program called “D”: The Plaintiff himself/herself KRW 7 million, E, KRW 5 million, and KRW 2 million, while the Defendant did not pay KRW 14 million for monthly salary for September 2016 and KRW 7 million for E/F as the Defendant delayed payment. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 24 million for unpaid monthly wage and additional monthly rent for E/F, and the Defendant paid KRW 7 million for E/F on behalf of the Plaintiff as the Defendant delayed payment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 24 million for unpaid monthly wage and additional monthly rent for E/F.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the amount that the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 10 million per month from May 2016 to September 2016, and that the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 14 million per month, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 7 million per month from May 2016 to September 2016, and KRW 14 million ( KRW 7 million per se, E, and KRW 2 million) that the Plaintiff agreed separately in relation to the program.

Even if C agreed to pay the Plaintiff the additional royalty of KRW 14 million, C is only a partner of the Defendant’s Chinese side, and it is not a regular branch office, and therefore C does not have the right to arbitrarily determine the additional royalty, so the Plaintiff cannot claim the payment to the Defendant.

From May 2016 to August 2016, the monthly rent was already paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Since the amount of KRW 10 million for the tenant’s work on September 2016 was paid through C, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff does not remain.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is not also disputing the fact that the Defendant, at the monthly rate of KRW 10 million on September 2016, bears to the Plaintiff the obligation of KRW 10 million on September 2016 to the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant is the Chinese partner of the defendant's side.