1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,53,600 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 28, 2015 to November 27, 2015; and (b) November 28, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to publish the sales advertisement, etc. of real estate that the Defendant sold in lots at the time of the electronic newspaper issued by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant advertising contract”).

B. On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice on April 30, 2012, with the supply value of KRW 66,660,00 (Additional Tax 6,66,000) with respect to the advertising fees under the instant advertising contract, and the date of preparation was confirmed and approved by the Defendant on May 8, 2012, and the said tax invoice was transmitted to the National Tax Service, thereby reporting the transaction to the National Tax Service normally.

C. In accordance with the instant advertising contract, from May 8, 2012 to May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff published twice in the end of the Plaintiff’s electronic newspaper (in white paper), twice in other pages, twice in total, and four times in total, on which the Defendant requested to run the advertisement, but thereafter suspended the advertisement at the Defendant’s request.

On January 16, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 4,000,000 to the Plaintiff as advertising price under the instant advertising contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 and 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff: 10 times of the advertising contract of this case, 6,60,00 won x 26,664,000 won x 4) since 4 times of the advertisement contract of this case, the amount corresponding thereto is 26,66,00 won (=6,66,000 won x 66,00 won).

In this context, if the Defendant deducts the amount of KRW 4,00,000 paid out of KRW 33,330,000,000 plus KRW 6,666,00,000, which was refunded according to the tax invoice by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 29,330,000 as advertising price under the instant advertising contract, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant: (a) consultation with the Plaintiff’s employees at the time of the instant advertising contract, based on ten basics, but the degree of five times was added to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant requested suspension due to the lack of advertising effect.