1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a memorandum of payment agreement (Evidence 4; hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) to the effect that “The Plaintiff would receive KRW 200 million from the Geumdae Construction Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff as patent royalties, but agreed to refund KRW 200 million by August 31, 2016, and agree to pay the said bonds to the Defendant who received the said bonds from the Geumdae Construction Co., Ltd.” (Evidence 4; hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

B. On August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff’s agent D and the Defendant drafted an authentic deed of debt repayment agreement (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) with the effect that “The Plaintiff shall return to the Defendant on August 10, 2016, with the payment of KRW 200 million, shall be made by August 31, 2016, and the interest rate shall be 20% per annum, interest rate shall be 24% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the said obligation, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is immediately conducted.”

(A) No. 5, hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”).

On March 6, 2017, the Defendant followed compulsory execution procedures, such as attaching patent rights owned by the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017 with the title of execution of the claim based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A4 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any claim against the Plaintiff, but proposed that “the Plaintiff’s patent right owned by the Plaintiff is protected by the obligees” during the process of the merger between the Plaintiff E and the Defendant FF corporation and that “the Plaintiff’s patent right is protected by the obligees,” and made a false statement and a notarial deed in order to respond to the enforcement of other obligees.

Therefore, since the letter of payment in this case and the notarial deed are invalid as they constitute false conspiracy labeling, it seeks to exclude the enforcement of the notarial deed in this case.

(b)(1) In the action of demurrer against a claim.