1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 4,00,000 and its amount per annum from November 12, 2015 to June 2, 2017, and the following:

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a company established on July 26, 2012 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling ESD applied products, manufacturing and selling electric power supply equipment, and selling and selling the production. (2) Defendant B is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of electric power supply equipment in the trade name of “C” from August 2010 to “C”.

3) Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(2) On May 22, 2014, Defendant B is a company established for the purpose of the development and production of electric vehicles, the development of electric power supply equipment, and the production of the electric power supply equipment. (b) Defendant B’s product development and supply to the Plaintiff. At the Plaintiff’s request, Defendant B refers to an electric power source supply system that applies a waterproof type LES SPS SPS (SPS) method converting all exchanges into a direct electric power source by using the spile, etc., along with Defendant B’s employee D around August 2012 at the Plaintiff’s request.

This is a direct stabilization power source system that controls the greenhouse-off time ratio of semiconductors location and stabilizs the output thereof. After converting the input input into the straight line, it is a device that convertss MOSFET to the straight line by using high-speed and converting it into the old straight line, and then re-afusing it into the straight line.As high-efficiency, small and medium-sized, and light-sized, it is widely used in most electronic devices, equipment, etc.

The development of electric power supply equipment products (hereinafter “instant products”) was completed, and around that time, the head of the National Radio Research Institute certified the suitability of the instant products under the name of the Plaintiff.

2) Defendant B produced the instant product from October 30, 2012, and determined the product in the same form as “I” in accordance with the Plaintiff’s model output capacity (art). For example, the model name in the case where output capacity is 200W is K, and the model name in the case where output capacity is 30W is K (as evidence 3-2 of the evidence 3-2 of the evidence 5, 6, 7 pages, and the purport of the entire pleadings.