1. From October 16, 2014 to December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its payment.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant were married on May 1, 1978 and agreed on November 12, 2007 to divorce, and completed the report of divorce on February 26, 2008.

C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Defendant’s business entity”) is a business entity with the purpose of manufacturing sludge, rollering and pin, which is a part of a motor vehicle, and the name of the business entity is the Defendant. The said site and the site and the building on its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), which is the factory building, are the nominal owner of the instant land and the building on its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Plaintiff was in charge of the instant business position, and the Plaintiff operated the instant Defendant’s business entity and carried on the economic life of his family.

On November 12, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on divorce, and prepared a written statement stating that “the Defendant shall transfer 49% of the shares of the Defendant’s business entity to the Plaintiff at the time of full repayment of the Defendant’s debt” (hereinafter “instant property division agreement”) and concluded a property division agreement.

Meanwhile, after being divorced with the Defendant, the Plaintiff: (a) set up and operated a so-called “E” business entity with the trade name “F” (hereinafter “Plaintiff business entity of this case”); (b) posted the advertisement of “E” in the magazines “G” and “H” from September 2009 to April 2010; and (c) used by the Defendant business entity of this case as widely known in the Republic of Korea in relation to the manufacture of beeing products by using the same advertising phrase and photograph as “A business three, sixty-five years tradition, Neveing production business entity, and 35 years accumulated technology and quality guarantee”; and (d) caused the Plaintiff to misunderstand the content, etc. of the goods of this case on the advertisement (hereinafter “instant unfair competition act”); and (e) thereby, committed an act of causing the misunderstanding of the content, etc. of the goods of the Defendant business entity of this case on January 20, 2015.