1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and its KRW 3,000,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7,00,000 from December 31, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a public performance in a marriage, etc. with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant operates a trading consulting company with the trade name of “D.”

B. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff held two performances from E, a trading company of the Defendant, from the morning to the P.M. (hereinafter “instant performance”).

C. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a written statement of performance as indicated in the attached Form stating that “The Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 10 million out of the Plaintiff’s planning of performance and the Plaintiff’s presentation of performance, distribution, distribution, and distribution of the right of invitation of worship, but the Defendant shall be paid KRW 3 million up to December 30, 2016 and KRW 7 million up to April 30, 2017” (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In order to proceed with the instant performance, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) KRW 2.2 million of the distribution model cost; (b) KRW 6.4 million of the musical learning cost; (c) KRW 2.122,00 of the MR production cost; (d) KRW 1.1 million of the MR production cost; (c) KRW 1.4 million of the MR production cost; (d) KRW 800,000 of the social cost; (e) KRW 2 million of the musical learning cost; and (e) KRW 18.820,00 of the musical learning cost; and (e) other incidental expenses.

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on the part of the Plaintiff, when the Defendant, on June 7, 2016, performed a public performance in the marriage ceremony for the Bank and F employees, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to produce the performance without receiving expenses; and (b) concluded a performance agreement with the Defendant, instead of providing the public performance; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff was performing the instant public performance; (d) however, the Defendant did not supply the performance to the Plaintiff under the said performance agreement, and (e) the Defendant was liable for nonperformance due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the performance; and (b) the Defendant