1. Certificates No. 1025, No. 1025, 2013, written by the Defendant’s Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed Party D, and notary public’s office against E.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2013, the Defendant had a claim for the royalty of KRW 37 million against the Plaintiff, Appointors D, and E (hereinafter the Plaintiff and Appointors together with the Plaintiff, etc.).

B. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff et al. paid KRW 37 million to the Defendant by March 30, 2014, and if the Plaintiff et al. fails to comply with the above payment date, the Plaintiff et al. agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant (hereinafter the instant agreement).

C. Under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant prepared a promissory note No. 1025 on the same day with a face value of KRW 55 million (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). D.

On June 20, 2016, the Defendant transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) the claim amounting to KRW 19 million out of the claims based on the instant authentic deed (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On August 3, 2016, the defendant notified the plaintiff, etc. of the assignment of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was fully paid to the Defendant the user fee of KRW 37 million.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties to a judgment as to the claim against the Defendant, or according to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff et al. shall pay the Defendant the equipment fee of KRW 10 million on January 30, 2014, and the same year.

4.3.19 million won, and the same year;

4. 14. 7 million won, etc. may be recognized that a sum of KRW 36 million has been paid, and the proposal for payment of equipment usage fees exceeding the above recognized scope shall not be admitted.

On the other hand, the plaintiff et al. could not pay the user fee of KRW 37 million to the defendant until March 30, 2014 ( KRW 55 million-37 million).