1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: USD 201,215.71 in U.S. dollars and its equivalent from July 1, 2015 to April 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendants: (a) Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) supplied the Plaintiff with the ear dog manufactured by Nonparty D (hereinafter “D”); and (b) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the said ear dog (hereinafter “instant ear dog”) to sell the said ear dog in the U.S. coding store in the U.S. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Under the instant contract, in the event that the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff-related parties paid the expenses due to the infringement of the patent right on the instant dog, the Defendants shall compensate for the said expenses. The relevant provisions are as follows.

Article 5 of the contract of this case (Korean Translation) is fully aware that the Defendants, when products are sold in the United States, may file legal measures with respect to patent infringement against the Plaintiff, E, Defendant B, and D.

In addition, Defendant B fully understand that these forms of measures may be brought about to all corporations and individuals involved in the preparation for the sale of products in the United States, including the U.S. Coding and packing companies, logistics and storage companies.

In addition, Defendant B guaranteed that the Plaintiff was conducting a thorough due diligence on the issue of whether the Plaintiff infringed upon the patent owned by any person or corporation of the world, and guaranteed that there is no infringement of any kind.

The plaintiff would depend on the main statement of the defendant B and would not conclude this contract in the absence of such positive statements by the defendant B.

a) The Defendants are all corporations and individuals involved in all stages of selling products, such as Plaintiff, E, U.S. Coconco and packing companies, logistics and warehouse companies, with respect to all patent infringements set forth above (hereinafter “exempts”).

Section 2.2.