1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding payment to the Defendant in excess of KRW 402,883,642 shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the D Center affiliated with B University from May 2005 (hereinafter “D Center”).

(2) Article 2 Subparag. 6 of the Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Act provides that “The term “the term “the term “the term “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “the term” means the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “which means the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term “which means the term” means “the term “the term “the term” under which the term “the term “which means the term” means “the term “the term” under Article 2(1) of the term “the term “the term “the term” under Article 2(1) of the Act.

In order to take charge of affairs related to industrial education, a corporation affiliated with B university established pursuant to Article 25 of the Industrial Education Enhancement and Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Education and Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Act"), shall perform duties, such as concluding and implementing industry-academia-Research Cooperation Agreements with respect to B university, acquiring and managing intellectual property rights, a person who provides technology related to employee invention, and compensation to persons who conduct relevant research.

B. The Plaintiff’s employee’s invention 1) since July 2005, F promoted the development of G for the purpose of treating the escape certificate of vertebrates with the Defendant and C. The Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, around May 2006, selected “H (the research management institution: the Defendant and the person in charge of the research management: the Defendant and the person in charge of the research management)” as a task of the health and medical service technology promotion project, subsidized the research expenses, and F subsidized the development project of G (hereinafter “the instant research and development project”).

(2) On July 2005, the Plaintiff was dispatched to F according to the Defendant’s good offices, and the Plaintiff was dispatched to F.