The plaintiff worked for the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") from November 1, 2009 to September 1, 2012, but did not receive wages and retirement allowances.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company as Seoul Northern District Court 2014Kadan49774, and the above court rendered a judgment on October 14, 2015 that "the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 27,012,110 with interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 16, 2012 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 4, 2015, Nonparty Company transferred (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”) all patent rights listed in [Attachment 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant patent”) to the Defendant, the actual representative of Nonparty Company, as indicated in [Attachment 1 and 2]. On the same day, Nonparty Company completed the registration of the entire transfer of the instant patent in the name of the Defendant with the receipt of the Korean Intellectual Property Office D.

C. Nonparty Company was insolvent at the time of the instant transfer agreement.

After that, the Defendant entered into an exclusive license registration agreement with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and completed the registration of establishment of exclusive license in the name of E on June 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the Plaintiff’s wage and other claims against Nonparty Company, the existence of the preserved claim, arising prior to the instant transfer agreement, the obligee’s right of revocation may become the preserved claim.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the damage claim arising from illegal acts, such as embezzlement of the amount of KRW 76,769,363 of the non-party company, and thus, it offsets the plaintiff's damage claim against the defendant's damage claim. However, the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant alone is recognized to have the