1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a copyright holder who created each design in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “B” design, No. 2 as “C” design, and each design in the separate sheet No. 1 as indicated in the separate sheet.

B. From around 2009, the Defendant used the proposal of “B” and “C” illegally and used it as promotional materials, etc.

C. On June 201, the Plaintiff received a proposal that “to place an order for service of at least KRW 500 million” and transferred the trademark right within “B” to the Defendant free of charge, but the Defendant failed to comply with the promise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above transfer contract is revoked on the grounds of the defendant's deception.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4.5 billion won and damages for delay as unjust enrichment from gratuitous use within the "B" and the "C" or as statutory damages under Article 125-2 of the Copyright Act.

The defendant asserts that the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit concerning the "B" design should be dismissed as a lawsuit in violation of the non-committee agreement.

However, according to Gap 6's statement, it is recognized that the party to a trademark transfer contract asserted as the non-committee agreement by the defendant is not an individual of the plaintiff but a corporation D (hereinafter "D"), and barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the effect of the non-committee special agreement entered into with D, a corporation, extends to the plaintiff's individual who has different character.

The defendant's main defense against the safety is not acceptable.

The plaintiff's claim on the merits is based on the premise that the plaintiff is a copyright holder in B and C's proposal, and thus, the plaintiff's claim on the merits is first considered.

The author of an occupational work published in the name of a corporation, etc. shall become the corporation, etc. unless otherwise stipulated in a contract, work regulation, etc.

(Article 9). According to the case of the Copyright Act, Article 3-7, 9, 2, and 3, the plaintiff's design of "B" and "C" will be the same.