1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a document stating “the right to use a trade contract” as of August 24, 2016, and the main contents of which are as follows:

(2) Article 1 (Purpose of Contract) of the Trade License Agreement (referred to as the Plaintiff, and marked as the “A” in this Agreement) provides the right to produce and sell the attached trademark (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trademark”) within the territory of the Republic of Korea to Party B (referred to the Defendant, and marked as B” in this Agreement).

Article 2 (Period of Contract) (1) (Period of Contract: From October 1, 2016 to October 1, 2017, B shall pay 10 million won as security deposit in return for the licenses and rights granted under this contract (payment method) under Article 5 (Payment Method) of the First Year from October 1, 2016 to October 1, 2017.

The monthly user fee of KRW 4 million from October 25, 2016 to March 25, 2017 shall be paid from March 2017, and the monthly user fee of KRW 10 million from April 25, 2017 to October 25, 2017 shall be paid, respectively.

On October 25, 2016, B entered into this contract to transfer the trademark royalty of KRW 10,000,000 to the account number (C) of the Bank of Korea.

Where a person violates the obligation to pay monthly user fees agreed to A for at least seven days, this Agreement shall not be effective.

(hereinafter omitted) 【Ground for recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 10】

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay the sum of the deposit stipulated in the instant trademark use agreement and the monthly rent of 84 million won until September 25, 2017.

B. The instant trademark use agreement concluded on August 24, 2016 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 24, 2016 is a contract under which the Defendant pays a deposit of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff by October 25, 2016.

However, the fact that the condition has been fulfilled in a condition precedent is that.