The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant was in the position of the representative director and the representative director of F (hereinafter “F”) of the Company D (hereinafter “D”), and that the Defendant submitted to the Korean Intellectual Property Office a letter of waiver of the patent right (patent registration number H, I, and hereinafter “instant patent”) which is the only asset of F (patent registration number H, I, and hereinafter “instant patent”) around September 20, 2012. However, the instant patent, which was D and F’s joint patent, belongs to D’s sole patent) ① This agreement between G, Defendant, D, and F4, who is the largest shareholder of F, on December 2009 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Since the Defendant did not perform this, the Defendant agreed that the patent development cost of this case was F (the largest shareholder), the Defendant did not lose the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the instant patent, and thus, the Defendant could not be deemed to have renounced the Plaintiff’s contractual breach of trust in the process of developing the instant patent, thereby failing to submit the agreement on the patent development cost of the instant patent.

No benefit may be considered to have been earned by D.

2. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the patent of this case, i.e., the F’s business purpose could not be achieved if it is essential for the business as the only asset or important asset of F, and the patent of this case is lost. ii) The Defendant asserted that the agreement of this case was terminated because F did not incur development costs, but Article 6 of the Agreement of this case is followed.