1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the wholesale retail, cutting processing, etc. of various steves-related products, and the Defendant is an individual who conducts academic research services, business management diagnosis, analysis, and research.

B. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a management consulting agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant advisory agreement”) and paid KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant as the management consulting fee (including additional tax) on the same day.

Article 1 (Contents of Advisory Services) The defendant shall perform all business affairs related to the capitalization of patent rights and (2) all business affairs related to investment in kind of intangible assets for the sound management of the plaintiff.

Article 3 (Payment Method of Remuneration)

1. The total remuneration shall be KRW 40,000,000, and the advisory fee of KRW 20,000,000 among them shall be paid on the date of the contract, and the technical value assessment fee of KRW 20,00,000 shall be paid on the date of value assessment;

2. Special agreement: The various costs (the cost of assessing the technical value of the manager's question fees) shall be refunded in full at the time of non-permanentization of the fiscal year in the year 2015.

Article 5 (Term of Contract) The term of validity of this Agreement shall be from the date of the contract to the date of completion of patentization.

When both parties extend the contract, they shall express their intention by the day preceding the end of the contract, and this contract shall be terminated if both parties agree on the extension of the contract, or if both parties do not agree on the extension of the contract despite either party's declaration of intention to extend the contract.

C. At the time of the instant advisory contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to make a patent application under the name of D and make a contribution in kind to the Plaintiff when obtaining a patent, as the Plaintiff did not own the patent right. Accordingly, around June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to make a patent application under the name of D.

Accordingly, the defendant's patent application through patent attorney could easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge from the Korean Intellectual Property Office on December 23, 2015.