1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,212,875 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 10, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a patent attorney, is the representative of the CIT Office, and the Defendant served as the representative as the founder of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and served as a technical officer after E and the U.S., appointed as the representative director on October 20, 201.

B. The Plaintiff, from around January 2005 to around 2012, has been performing the business of filing an application, a request for trial, and the payment of patent fees, etc. for the maintenance of registered patents with Nonparty Company and the Defendant. As to the above agency business, the outstanding amount (in the case of two inventions and the applicant, referring to the Defendant) is KRW 40,212,875, totaling KRW 40,212,875, which was not paid from January 2013 (=1,965,000 related to the domestic patent trial at home).

C. Before January 2013, Nonparty Company paid the Plaintiff the above fee, etc. (including both Nonparty Company and Defendant) but did not pay it thereafter, and sent e-mail to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013 that it is problematic that the Plaintiff would pay the patent-related expenses of the Defendant’s individual to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2-9 evidence, Gap 17 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant did not prepare a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but all the outstanding amounts claimed by the Plaintiff are the Plaintiff’s commission, registration, and maintenance for the registration, maintenance, etc. of the patent right to which the Defendant is the applicant. As a matter of course, the Defendant should bear the obligation.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount of money and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The counter-party who accepted the patent application of this case by the defendant is the non-party company and is not the defendant.

The reason is the actual use of related patents or the project as a patent technology.