1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of KRW 20,000,000 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 80,119,723 and KRW 43,270 among the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant's main defense and judgment are based on the fact that the plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of the trademark and the provision of service with the defendant, and the defendant claims the trademark fees and consulting fees, and the defendant has a collection order concerning the part of the claim, and therefore the part should be dismissed.

If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(1) In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s trademark, etc. and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff as to KRW 20,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff provided to the Defendant by using the Plaintiff’s trademark, etc. and providing various services, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2017TTTT51246, Mar. 6, 2017.

According to this, the part of KRW 20,000,000, which issued a collection order by C among the instant lawsuit, is inappropriate as the Plaintiff loses the standing to be a party, and thus, the Defendant’s main defense to the safety is justifiable.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Fact 1) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of trademarks and provision of services, which would allow the Defendant, who operates a dental clinic, to use the Plaintiff’s trademark, etc., and receive consideration therefor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s provision of services to the Defendant is a comprehensive support and consulting business, such as accounts, taxation, personnel management, customer management, medical education, response to disputes, etc. necessary for the operation of the Council members, marketing agency, such as advertising, supply of Council members’ facilities, medical equipment, etc., and supply of materials and supplies of materials and supplies to the Plaintiff, etc. (Article 2(1)2 of the contract). The Defendant’s monthly sales from the Plaintiff’s trademark fees amounting to KRW 16,50,00,000 by adding value-added tax, and KRW 110,000,000.