On April 6, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased and held KRW 10,000 per share of 50,000 shares issued by MelS (hereinafter “MelS”) and sold the remainder of KRW 2,00 per share to Defendant C on March 27, 2007, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff, 8,000 shares out of the above MelS shares of KRW 10,00 per share, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Defendant C is the company of Defendant B, and Defendant D is an employee of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) whose representative director was Defendant B.

Melel was a venture company established on February 2, 200 by the Seoul National University Cluster Development System and the Hanyang National University Schiroth, which was established by the Hanyang National University Research Center, after completing research and development stages from 2005, began to commercialize mobile phone inputs by developing the tamper method in around 2005, and the sales have increased considerably after being registered as the first subcontractor by Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. around February 2006.

The annual sales and net profits of Mel license before and after the instant sales contract are as listed below.

In March 28, 2007, 2004, 2006, 798 20,135 35,338 net income -48 - 484-574 4,6029,019 of the year 2007 held a regular general meeting of shareholders on March 28, 2007, which is the day following the sales contract of this case. The proposal includes financial statements approval for 2006 fiscal year, partial revision of the articles of incorporation, etc. The major contents of the articles of incorporation amended at the said regular general meeting of shareholders are as shown in the annexed Form “the major details of the amendment to the Articles of Incorporation.”

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 10-1 through Gap evidence Nos. 12-2, Gap evidence Nos. 14, the appraisal result by the appraiser of the first instance trial, and when the company sells assets owned by the company as to the claim against the defendant B, the transaction price shall be determined in the direction to maximize the disposal profit or to stimulate the disposal loss.