2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, a corporation mainly engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as boiler, in the People’s Republic of China, entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the progress of an international application of PC (hereinafter “the instant first service contract”) with respect to the burning fuel supply device in the Republic of Korea, and paid KRW 4,650,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. Around that time, the Defendant requested services relating to the said international application to a patent firm multiple times, and paid KRW 1,500,000 to patent firm multiples on June 16, 2015.

C. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the proceeding of the instant secondary service agreement with respect to the instant PC international application (hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary service agreement”) with respect to the instant device, and paid KRW 4,650,000 to the Defendant on July 9, 2015.

On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of each of the above service contracts by content-certified mail on the ground that the Defendant was unable to receive an international application under the above service contract, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. Each of the instant service contracts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was rescinded due to nonperformance due to the Defendant’s delay, and even if not, the Defendant, even though not capable of executing an international application under each of the instant contracts, by deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the service cost. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the service cost of KRW 9,300,000 and the damages for delay paid pursuant to each of the instant service contracts.

B. Defendant (1) performed his best to proceed with an international application in accordance with each of the instant service contracts, but did not cooperate in the Plaintiff’s business related to international contribution, such as the provision of translations.