약정금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The phrase “inter-university with university” in Part 2, Form 13, which is removed or added, shall be read as “university department”.
The phrase “inter-party” in attached Form 18 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.
The third page of the judgment of the first instance court shall add "the plaintiff" to " March 17, 2014."
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "C" in Part 18 shall be changed to "C".
Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, "each entry," in paragraph 11, shall be added to "part of the testimony of the witness H of the first instance court."
On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, the term "this court" in the 11th judgment shall be read as "the first instance court".
Part 5 of the fifth decision of the first instance shall add to the following:
H is a person who has established C and owns 70% of the shares, and S owns 100% of the shares of the Defendant since its establishment, and S is the kind of H.
Part 8 of the decision of the first instance court, the "R" of the 12th, 18, 9th, 2nd, 3th, and 13 is considered as the "H" collectively.
Part 9 of the decision of the first instance shall add the following details to the 10th sentence:
As to this, the defendant asserts that "PEAP (PEAP) for the adaptation to academic affairs of U.S. universities" holds a copyright to the language course program "PEAP", and that C has made it possible for students to conduct the language course entrustment education using it, and that it has received money from C in the name of the author's royalty or advisory fee.
However, there is no proof as to how to determine the royalty, etc. for the use of the language curriculum program against anyone when the defendant specifically, and as above, there is no proof.