1. The Plaintiff; Defendant B shall be KRW 193,610,000; Defendant C shall be KRW 135,000,000; and each of the above amounts shall be from July 10, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 195, 1995, the Plaintiff developed D plant varieties, the change of the burden of d (hereinafter “instant plant variety”) and applied for the protection of the instant plant variety to the National Forest Variety Center around E, and the F applied for the protection of the instant plant variety was made public, and the plant variety right, such as H’s attached Table, was registered.

B. The Defendants purchased D seedlings from the Plaintiff and reproduced them according to the method notified by the Plaintiff, and sold part of them. As a result, the Defendants have considerable number of D until now.

C. After filing an application for the protection of the instant variety, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of such fact that D would not be reproduced.

In order to preserve the evidence against the Defendants’ infringement of the plant variety right, the Plaintiff applied for the preservation of the instant plant variety right as Jeonju District Court Branch Branching 2010Kao104, and in the instant case, the seeds and seedlings of the instant plant variety, which were voluntarily reproduced from November 1, 2010 to November 1, 2010, were appraised as KRW 18,722, and Defendant C, as KRW 7,000, after the publication date of the said plant variety right.

E. Although the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of a non-exclusive license for the instant variety, the Defendants’ claim was dismissed on the ground that a non-exclusive license is not granted to the Defendants, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the establishment of liability for damages, the variety protection right holder under Articles 34-2(1), 55(1), and 57(1) of the Seed Industry Act has exclusive right to exploit the variety from the date of publication of the variety, and if other person infringes on the right, the right holder under Article 86(1) shall compensate for damages suffered by the variety protection right holder under Article 86(1). According to the above findings, the plaintiff shall exclusively be the holder of the variety from F, the date of publication of the variety of this case.