2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff has 50,000,000 won as to D and the interest thereon or damages for delay.

(Seoul District Court 2015Kadan37134). (b)

On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the debtor D and 3 debtor as the Defendants and the amount claimed as KRW 25,736,862 for each of the Defendants; and (b) received a collection order (Seoul District Court 2015TTT 20491).

C. D is serving as a director of the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D allows the Defendants to register and use their patented goods, and operates the Defendants. As such, the Defendants are entitled to claim fees for patent technology and dividends for operating profits, etc. against the Defendants, and the Plaintiff received a collection order stipulated in paragraph (b).

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 25,736,862 to the Plaintiff according to the above collection order.

B. A seizure and collection order for a judgment claim takes effect within the scope of the claim which became its subject, and the existence and scope of the claim to be collected in a lawsuit for the collection amount bears the burden of proof of the plaintiff as a requisite fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007). However, only the fact that D is a director of the Defendants and evidence Nos. 2 through 4 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendants are liable to pay royalties, dividends, etc. for patent technology to D, and there is no other evidence.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.