beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the “Plaintiff of Construction Work” in the fourth and seventh conduct of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “the construction cost”; and (b) the “amount equivalent to KRW 800 million” in the sixth and eleven conduct of the first instance shall be deemed as “amounting to KRW 120 million out of KRW 800 million”; and (c) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion made by this court shall be deemed as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the additional determination” as to the allegations added by this court, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, since the Plaintiff transferred its existing business performance related to D’s public law using the patent of this case to the Defendant, received the agreed amount, etc. in return, and includes the establishment of the exclusive license of the patent of this case for such business purposes, if the Plaintiff did not transfer its previous business performance to the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that the obligation to pay the agreed amount, etc. under the above contract does not occur, but if the Plaintiff transferred its previous business performance to the Defendant, the obligation to pay the transferred amount would occur even if it did not grant the exclusive license to the Defendant.
B. In light of the language and text of the instant contract, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the entry and arguments in Gap evidence No. 2, Article 1 provides that "the plaintiff shall be qualified as a general manager of D," Article 2 provides that "the plaintiff shall have overall control over the patent business of this case as a member of D, and shall recognize the plaintiff's right to obtain D's exclusive license while entering the defendant (as he belongs to D)," and Article 3 (2) provides that "the plaintiff shall allow D to obtain an exclusive license in relation to the patent of this case, and the defendant shall arrange to exercise overall control over the business sector of the patent of this case."