1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,023,200 as well as 5% per annum from November 26, 2017 to October 23, 2018 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a patent as “C” and acquired the patent as “C” (hereinafter “instant patent”).

B. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff imported 2,200 tons of the Potasium powder in the Republic of Korea, manufactured by “F” at the time of piracy, instead of China, through Non-Party Habex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

C. On May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that “The invalidation trial on the instant patent shall be denied since the elements of the instant patent invention have already been publicly known prior to the application of the patent of this case, merely an official technology, or could easily be claimed by the party business operator,” and that the instant patent invalidation trial on May 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant patent invalidation trial”).

B) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board asserted that “The Plaintiff’s import of a Pium Pium sium produced from foreign countries and made it with water mixed, and then used it for the elimination of wastewater and sulfur oxides is not adopted to adopt the essential elements of the patent of this case” (hereinafter “the instant adjudication on the confirmation of the scope of rights”). The judgment on the confirmation of the scope of rights (hereinafter “the adjudication on the confirmation of the scope of rights of this case”).

(2) On April 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a provisional injunction against infringement of the patent with the Gwangju District Court, and withdrawn the provisional injunction. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with the Plaintiff and the above iceex, had the Plaintiff manufacture the fishery sium in the same manner as the patent of this case, and then imported it to the Busan District Court to claim that the Defendant created and sold the fishery sium sium sium, and then, the Defendant applied for a provisional injunction against infringement of the patent. (iii) On July 14, 2016, the court of the instant provisional injunction case applied for a decision of recommending a compromise (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending a compromise of this case”).

B. The above.