The defendant shall dismiss the application filed by the applicant for compensation.

1. On August 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 16:40, at the F Office in the F Office in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. of the Defendant’s operation of the fourth floor of building E; and (b) the fact that the patent right related to the core part of the “Pool” does not have a patent registration; (c) even if the Defendant did not own the patent right and received money from another person, even if he did not have the patent right, he did not have any intent or ability to grant the right to sell, the Defendant acquired the patent right by exchanging the patent right related to the “Pool” owned by the Japanese company and other patent rights owned by F.

In order to develop core parts of "Pool trading" within 40 days from the date on which 100 million won was received, and to grant the right to sell "Pool trading" using them.

‘Falsely speaking, it received KRW 100 million from the injured party to the new cooperation account in the name of the F Co., Ltd. of the same month and acquired it by fraud.

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, according to the contract terms between the defendant and the victim, it is essential to provide the victim with core parts, etc. related to the production of crowdfunding and grant the right to sell them. Whether the defendant's patent right to crowdfunding is owned by the defendant is an essential contract terms. The defendant is not a key contract terms. The defendant entered into an agreement with the Japanese patent applicant, a patent applicant, around April 2014, which was the transfer of the contract with the victim, with the Japan, for the exclusive right to use of crowdfunding, and would have been able to produce crowdfunding by receiving technical support, etc. in relation to the production of crowdfunding. Further, the patent application related to the crowdfunding was actually registered around August 21, 2015, and the defendant manufactured the patent application and supplied it to the victim within 40 days as the contract terms were actually made, but did not supply the core parts to the victim.