1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 14, 2018 to May 9, 2019.

Facts of recognition

Attached Form

Each gold model indicated in the list was used by D, the representative director of the plaintiff, and the defendant's supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") as the exclusive licensee.

Around August 2017, the Defendant was requested to produce assembly-type boxes, etc. from the Intervenor, and was delivered by the Intervenor for the production thereof on August 31, 2017.

On September 1, 2017, the defendant prepared a monetary custody certificate against the plaintiff at the request of the intervenor.

The above document states that the gold penalty in custody of the defendant is the plaintiff's property, so it shall not be damaged in any case, and the acceptance and correction of the gold penalty shall be completed only at the plaintiff's request, and other acts shall be prohibited.

In September 2017, the Defendant received repair costs from the Intervenor and revised the following to one of the gold-type 1 set forth in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “the gold-type”).

(1) The Defendant, on June 11, 2018, returned to the Plaintiff each gold model as indicated in the separate sheet, on the following day: (a) a change in the shape of each house; (b) a change in the shape of each house; (c) a gold panel (PNL) a gold panel (PNL), and (d) a gold panel (PNL), a change in the shape of each set in the separate sheet.

[Reasons] A. A. A. a.s. 1 through 4, each entry in Eul’s evidence, each image of Eul’s evidence 2 and 3, E’s testimony, and the purport of the entire argument of the parties concerned, may produce a product that must be identical to one set of money in the Plaintiff’s argument. The Defendant changed the gold type without permission, thereby causing damage to KRW 24,336,00, which is equivalent to the new production cost of the gold type of this case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for such damage.

The defendant asserted that he obtained the consent of the plaintiff from the intervenor, who is an exclusive licensee, and subsequently revised the penalty of this case.

Even if not, the gold penalty in this case is restored to its original state.