A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,582,582,756 won with 5% interest per annum from March 31, 2005 to February 11, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim for patent transfer registration added in the trial is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 40% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Main and Preliminary, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,00,000,000 with 5% per annum from January 1, 1998 to the date of the judgment of the appellate court, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the transfer registration of patent rights as to the patent stated in the attached list to the plaintiff (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim as to the monetary claim in the trial and added the claim for the transfer registration of patent rights).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 100,100,000 won with 5% per annum from January 1, 1998 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), as a whole, the purport of the entire pleadings:

A. Details of the instant invention

(1) In around 192, Non-Party New Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Construction”) acquired Non-Party same-sexing Co., Ltd. and changed its trade name into a new Ethrified Co., Ltd., and established Non-Party New Ethrified Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PTMEG”), and made considerable efforts and expenses to promote technology transfer from foreign companies, etc.

(2) At around 1995, the Plaintiff, who was working as an executive director for the new construction, performed an invention on the method of manufacturing polytetrathe Ethrhy Ethrix (hereinafter “TPPMEA”), a intermediate substance of the said PTPPMG, using the promotional sheet and the promotional sheet, which led to the activation of the Korean elderly, and completed the invention (hereinafter “the instant invention”).

B. Patent application and registration of the invention of this case

(1) Upon becoming aware of the Plaintiff’s invention, the new construction, etc. consulted with the Plaintiff to apply for patent, and delegated the Plaintiff’s patent application to the patent attorney by designating the inventor as the inventor and the applicant for the new construction, etc., and the Plaintiff cooperates in the application procedure by preparing a draft of the specification, preparing a written opinion responding to the notification of submission of the Korean Intellectual Property Office’s opinion, and submitting it to the patent attorney, and the said company

(2) On June 2, 1995, the invention of this case filed an application on June 2, 1995, and the name of the applicant was changed to the new compatibility due to the merger of the new compatibility price in the application. The patent registration was completed as of June 16, 1999.

(3) On the other hand, around January 17, 1997, the Plaintiff filed an international application for PC with the inventor, and the Plaintiff became the patent registration of each of the above countries around March 2001, around October 2002, and around December 8, 2002 in each of the above countries (the Plaintiff transferred the right to obtain a patent to the new owner of the patent in the U.S. around July 8, 1999, and each of the above patentee is the Defendant).

(c) Transfer of a patent;

(1) On December 13, 1999, new compatibility entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer of business (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of business”) to the Defendant, including the real assets and liabilities used in operating the TPPEG business of new compatibility (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On the other hand, in accordance with the transfer contract of the business in this case, the transfer registration of the patent in this case was completed on January 11, 200, due to the new construction on the same day and the merger and transfer of the defendant, respectively.

(d) Consultation between the parties on the transfer price or compensation;

(1) After applying for the instant invention, the Plaintiff promoted in sequence from the regular director of the new construction to the vice president, and retired from the construction of new technology while serving until August 28, 2000, and was employed as the head of the Defendant’s technical research institute from October 200 to the end of October 2004. The Plaintiff did not raise any objection as to the ownership relationship of the instant invention between the filing date of the instant invention and the end of October 204.

(2) On or around March 30, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted the right to the invention of this case with content certification and demanded compensation from the Defendant. On or around May 24, 2005 and June 7, 2005, the Defendant testified that the Plaintiff’s above declaration of intent as above “a claim shall be confirmed within the effective period of the claim, and shall continue to hold consultation with the Plaintiff even after the expiration of the effective period of the claim,” and agreed on the amount of compensation between the Plaintiff, but did not find any unity. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking compensation on the grounds that the Defendant was the mother of the instant invention, which is substantially owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant retired from the Defendant company on or around December 2005.

E. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the patent invalidation adjudication against the Defendant was filed on the ground that the patent invention in this case was the Plaintiff’s free invention, and that “the patent invention in this case is deemed to have implicitly transferred the Plaintiff’s free invention or the right to obtain a patent.” The patent court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim even in the revocation litigation of the patent decision No. 2007No7280, and the appeal was dismissed and the decision on the trial became final and conclusive even in Supreme Court Decision No. 2008Hu32544, supra.

2. Assignment of the right to obtain a patent;

According to the facts found in the above 1. The invention of this case constitutes a "free invention" which does not belong to the plaintiff's scope of duty. However, between the plaintiff and the new Tytity site, nitrization, and nitrization construction, there was an implied agreement to transfer "the right to obtain a patent" to the new Tytity site at the time of the application for the invention of this case.

3. Judgment on the claim for payment of money

(f) the primary and conjunctive claims;

The plaintiff is primarily obligated to pay to the plaintiff the reasonable transfer price under the implied transfer agreement of the patent of this case, and the amount shall be at least equivalent to or more than the compensation for the employee invention. The defendant acquired the above transfer price payment obligation with the patent of this case from the transfer of business from the transfer of business from the transfer of business from the transfer of the new date that combines the new date of the new date, and gained profits through the execution of the invention of this case and licensing contract. The defendant claimed against the plaintiff 6 billion won and its delayed payment damages as part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff as shown in attached Table 1 as part of the plaintiff's claim in attached Table 1.

The plaintiff, preliminaryly, the plaintiff rescinded the implied transfer agreement of the patent of this case by serving the purport of the claim of this case and the application for the alteration of the cause thereof. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the plaintiff's claim amount as stated in the attached Table 1 as profits derived from the patent of this case from the cancellation to the original state, and that the plaintiff is obligated to return the plaintiff's claim amount. As part

G. Judgment on the main claim

(1) Whether an agreement exists on the transfer price of a patentable right

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff impliedly transferred the right to obtain a patent for the invention of this case to the new Tytity. ① At the time of transfer, it is unclear whether the patent for the invention of this case is registered, and it is difficult to expect profits that would be generated from the subsequent transfer because it is not commercialized, and thus, it is difficult to estimate the objective value of the invention of this case. ② Large scale production facilities and human resources are supported to commercialize the invention of this case, and a considerable period of time is required such as establishment of test production and mass production system. ③ The invention of this case is the Plaintiff’s free invention, and it is not obligated for the Plaintiff to transfer it to the new Tytity or new construction, and the right under the former Patent Act, such as a non-exclusive license, is not recognized. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the new Tytity or new construction transfer the Plaintiff’s right to obtain the patent of this case to the new Tytity, and that there was an implied agreement to pay the Plaintiff’s contribution to the objective value of the invention of this case and the transfer price.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the invention in this case is a free invention and the completion of the invention in this case is used with human resources and facilities such as newization, construction, and cremation, the above considerable amount shall be deemed to be at least the amount equivalent to the compensation for the employee's invention if the invention in this case is assumed as an employee's invention, and it shall be deemed to have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the money equivalent to the compensation for the employee'

(2) Succession to the payment obligation of transfer price

As seen earlier, the fact that the application for the invention of this case was merged with the newization of the job price. In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 8, the defendant comprehensively transferred the business including substantial assets and liabilities used in operating the business, including the patent right of this case, between the newization and the newization, on December 13, 1999, the defendant succeeded to the obligation to pay the transfer price of the right to obtain the patent of this case, along with the patent right of this case. The profit-making of the invention of this case is after the defendant's takeover of business, and the plaintiff demanded compensation for the invention of this case against the defendant around March 30, 2005, and the defendant recognized the plaintiff's right to obtain compensation for the invention of this case. According to the above fact of recognition, the defendant succeeded to the obligation to pay the transfer price of the right to obtain the patent of this case from the newization with the patent right of this case.

The defendant asserts that the defendant did not succeed to the obligation to pay the transfer price of the right to obtain a patent since the contract did not explicitly accept the debt other than a specific debt at the time of the contract for the transfer of the business. If the patent right of this case was collected in the statement of No. 8 and No. 18, at the time of the contract for the transfer of the business, at the time of the contract for the transfer of the business, was included in the assets subject to the transfer, and the above obligation to pay the transfer price was not listed in the list of the liabilities acquired, but was not realized at the time of the contract for the transfer of the business, it cannot be concluded that the above obligation was excluded from the obligation subject to the transfer. Rather, even if the above evidence was based on the above evidence, the defendant cannot be acknowledged the fact that the defendant comprehensively acquired the assets and the liabilities used for the PTMG business from new compatibility, and the defendant did not accept the claim for the transfer price of this case as a whole (see Article 28-1 and No. 2 of the Commercial Act).

(G) The Plaintiff paid the transfer price of the right to obtain the patent of this case upon receiving the transfer price of the business, or there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim the transfer price. It is reasonable to deem that the payment obligation of the transfer price was linked to the patent of this case and transferred along with the patent of this case).

(3) Whether the claim for transfer proceeds has expired

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer price of the invention of this case has expired by ten years since June 2, 1995, the filing date of the application for the invention of this case.

On June 2, 1995, the patent application date of the Plaintiff’s implied transfer of the right to the Plaintiff is reasonable to regard it as June 2, 1995, which is the filing date of the patent application date, and the ten-year period has elapsed from the date of the instant lawsuit. However, according to the evidence No. 28-1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s reply against the Plaintiff’s demand for compensation for the invention of this case against the Defendant on May 24, 2005 that “the Plaintiff’s request for compensation is confirmed within the effective period of the claim, and it is necessary to continue consultation with the Plaintiff.” This constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is the cause suspending the extinctive prescription. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s second defense pointing this out has merit, and the Defendant’s defense has no merit.

(4) Calculation method of the transfer price equivalent to employee invention compensation

As to the calculation of a reasonable amount of compensation for employee’s invention that can be seen as the transfer price of the right to obtain the patent of this case, Article 4 of the Addenda to the Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006) and Article 40 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001; hereinafter “former Patent Act”) shall be determined by comprehensively considering the following factors: (i) the amount of profit derived from the newization, crematization, and the defendant (hereinafter “the defendant, etc.”) by the invention of this case; (ii) the degree of contribution of employers and employees to the invention; and (iii) if a joint inventor exists, the amount of compensation for the inventor’s contribution to the invention of this case shall be determined by comprehensively considering the details of the invention of this case and the process of commercializing it.

(A) Detailed details and commercialization process of the instant invention

The following facts may be acknowledged as Gap's evidence Nos. 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 31, 33, 36, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, and 48; Eul's evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 22, 24, 25, and 38; non-party 1's testimony of the witness at the trial; the result of the plaintiff's examination (excluding the part which is not trusted among the above evidence);

1) The main process of the manufacture of the PTPPG is as follows: ① (i) the main process of the manufacture of the PTPPA, an intermediate substance, by reactioning the tetratra Hadydy (hereinafter “THF”) with the tetra hydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydye (hereinafter “TPP”), and (ii) the process of mixing the above PTPPA with the teMG and returning it to the PTPPG after reaction under the estydydydydydydydydydydydydydydye (hereinafter “PTPP”), and the process is accompanied by the process of excluding dual combinations by the process of refineding the PTPPF by adding the teF with the ethydydydydydydydydydydying process.

2) In early the early 1990s, new construction was to promote PTPPG production projects using 1,4-BDO as a raw material, and came into contact with foreign companies in order to obtain transfer of TPPG production technology by combining the technology from Davy (Daavy) and combining it. From 1993, newization applied for transfer of TPPMG production technology (PCMG international application disclosure WO94/05719) from Dol, Germany, Germany, retired from BASF in 1993, and it took the form of transfer of TPPMG production technology (PTPP international application disclosure WO94/05719) (this took the form of transfer of technology from SUVO company). However, while construction of multiple files for production of TPPMG and integrated operation was carried out by 9,000,000 from 50,000,000 from 90,000,000).

3) The Plaintiff, as an executive director for the new construction, participated in the construction of the above PETG file multiple plant. However, around 1995, the Plaintiff had Nonparty 1 head, Nonparty 2, etc., affiliated with the new construction, collect materials from various candidates to manufacture the above promotions, such as the Korean Industrial Complex, and had Nonparty 3 head, Nonparty 4, etc., who are affiliated with the new oiling equipment, conduct an experiment in the new oiling laboratory. The Plaintiff presented the source materials, test conditions, etc., and conducted an experiment under various conditions. Accordingly, Nonparty 1, and 3, etc., sought basic materials and conducted an experiment again under various conditions.

4) The summary of the instant invention is as follows.

(a) The title of the invention: polyethylene tephene tephene tephene tephene tephene manufacturing tephene tephene tephene, and using the tephene tephene tephene manufacturing method;

(b)claims

In claim 1, claim 1: The promotion for the manufacture of polyethylene ether, which is obtained by treating and boosting the Korean elderly (including a 75-95-weight %), for 2 to 16 hours at the temperature of 200°C or 850°C, within the range of temperature of 2 to 16 hours.

A claim 2: In paragraph 1, it is characterized by treating the above Korea's old climate, and then treating it again with chlorates to activate it.

C. Claim 3: The promotion of the manufacture of polytere Meglycol disty, which is obtained by treating and boosting the Korean elderly soil (including 75 to 95 cm with total weight) with chlorate for 2 to 16 hours within the temperature range of 200C or 850C.

4. Claim 4: A method of manufacturing polytetramethyl ether dalphide dalphene by reactioning the tetrachlorothroids under the existence of a non-water-free calcium acid, using the characteristics of using the promotions obtained by frying 2 to 850 cc within the temperature of 200 cc through 850 cc., as a result of the combination reaction, Korea's aged soil (including the 75-95 cc. site for the total weight).

5) After completion of the instant invention, the Plaintiff, as the project manager, started the design and construction of a commercial factory of 13,00 tons or more of the total amount of 13,00 tons, and was equipped with a mass production system, such as commencing the production of the PETG from November 1, 1996. Accordingly, around 197, the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 3 of the new construction, and Nonparty 3 of the new compatibility, were jointly awarded a funeral prize due to the contribution of the “PTMEG and plant engineering development.”

6) In around 2002, the Defendant entered into a contract for the design and technical license of the PTMG plant with China’swawawel Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KG”) and CNPC company (hereinafter “CNPC”) around 2004. At the time of entering into each of the above contracts, the Plaintiff participated in the review and negotiation of the contract as the Defendant’s CTO (the highest technical officer) and subsequent technology transfer.

(b) The standard for calculating the transfer price

In calculating the transfer price in accordance with the employee’s invention compensation (which should be included among them), the defendant, etc. shall be the basis for calculating the future profit by the invention of this case, and as a matter of principle, the time of calculating the profit shall be the time when the right to obtain a patent or the patent is succeeded to the right to obtain a patent. As such, the time of succession should be the basis for calculating the reasonable profit expected to be obtained by the future employer from the employee’s invention.

However, since the transfer of a patentable right is not only an uncertain state of acquisition of the patent right, but also it is difficult to calculate the royalty in advance by predicting future interests, the court may calculate the "amount of profit the user would gain," taking into account the specific circumstances that occurred by the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court after the succession of the right, such as the performance of the actual license agreement, the implementation of the self-produced product, and sales, etc., and such calculated amount shall be deemed the amount of profit reasonably foreseeable even if it returned to the time of succession.

The Defendant’s calculation of employee’s invention compensation must be based on the presumption of “the right to obtain a patent” or “the amount of profit to be obtained by the employer” as at the time of transfer of the patent right, and shall not be considered ex post facto as the benefits derived from the commercialization of the employer’s efforts after the transfer. However, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the employer’s efforts and expenses, etc. for commercialization after the succession of the right may be considered as the employer’s contribution; even if the employer paid compensation at the time of succession of the right, if it is deemed that the compensation is inappropriate because the amount exceeds the anticipated benefits at the time of succession of the right, then the employee may claim “justifiable compensation”; on the other hand, if the employer fails to implement the invention or fails to obtain any benefits therefrom, the employee’s right to claim compensation for employee’s invention is not connected to the anticipated at the time of succession, and it does not recognize the right to claim compensation for employee’s invention by reflecting the following ex post facto circumstances.

(C) Indices of calculating profits of the defendant et al.

(i)in the case of self-working, the royalty rate;

Although the invention of this case is not "employee invention" for which a non-exclusive license is granted to an employer under the provisions of law, it is within the scope of business of the Plaintiff's employer, the Plaintiff's company, the affiliate company, and the PTPPG business, and the Plaintiff used human resources and material resources to complete the invention of this case. The Plaintiff was unable to realize commercial value of the invention of this case without any investment for its commercialization. In light of the circumstances at the time of the application of the invention of this case and the Plaintiff's attitude after its application and registration, even if the Plaintiff did not transfer the right to obtain the patent of this case to the new owner, it is deemed that a non-exclusive license was granted at least without compensation even if the Plaintiff did not transfer the right to obtain the patent of this case to the new owner, and the profits that the Defendant et al. obtained through succession of the right to obtain a patent or the patent right to obtain the patent of this case beyond the non-exclusive license, and thus, it is reasonable to deduct profits from the entire profit of invention of this case from 1/2 of exclusive use.

On the other hand, the invention of this case is not an invention of a product, but a manufacturing method using promotion and promotions necessary for the middle consolidation of the PTPPA, which is an intermediate product, from THF, and PTPPA is calculated through a follow-up stage such as return reaction process, as seen above. Although the invention of this case is the most important technology, it is possible to manufacture the PTPPG by any means other than the method of the invention, and in view of the importance of the process of the invention of this case to the entire PTPPG process, it is reasonable to view that the royalty rate for the use of the invention of this case to the total sales of the PTPPG, which is a final product, is 1% all the sales amount already generated and expected future sales amount at the end of the closing of the argument of this case.

Although the defendant asserts that he incurred loss due to his own implementation and did not generate profit, the amount of profit of the user here does not mean only the "profit that he would gain by the invention itself," but it does not mean the remaining amount of financial profit (sales profit, operating profit, etc.) after the settlement of profits and expenses. Thus, the mere fact that the final settlement of profits and expenses due to the excessive disbursement of the expenses of the snow company does not remain if the amount of profits and expenses remains (the circumstance that the user paid considerable expenses for commercialization, etc. can be considered at the stage of determining the "invention's compensation rate" if it is different from the situation that the user paid considerable expenses for commercialization, etc.).

2) Ratio of the instant invention to licensing income

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12, 31, 32, and 35, the defendant entered into a contract for the design and technology license of the manufacturing factory of the TPPMG between the Chinesewa Director and the CNPC company. In light of the fact that the defendant entered into a contract for the design and technology license of the manufacturing factory of the TPPMG in China, the specific amount of the contract price is set as the price for the above manufacturing, and the fact that the above plant construction did not provide any other patent technology except the invention of this case. The above facts of recognition reveal that the invention of this case before the above facts of recognition are not related to not only the promotion itself, but also the manufacturing method of the TPPMA using the promotion, and if the defendant did not hold the patent right to the invention of this case, it seems difficult to conclude the contract, and in view of the importance of the invention of this case in the entire PTPPG manufacturing process, it is reasonable to view the defendant's profits from the invention of this case to the extent of 20% price of all l&k-h-H-h.

In order to calculate the defendant's profit from the invention of this case since the invention of this case was not granted a patent right in China and there was no technology transfer, the defendant argued that only the sales amount of the promotional tender provided under the above contract should be considered. However, since the invention of this case is not registered in China in China, it is not possible to obtain a license fee for the technology, and the invention of this case is related to the production method of the PTPPA using the promotional sheet as well as the promotional sheet. In light of the above, the defendant's above assertion is without merit (the defendant's assertion as to the profit related to the sales amount of the promotional tender sold to the above Chinese company, and the above sales amount is included in the sales amount of the promotional tender as seen earlier).

(D) Contribution by the Defendant, etc.

The invention of this case is based on human and physical facilities and basis established for the new construction, new compatibility, and negotity price, and the time and expenses invested by each of the above companies and the defendant from the completion of the invention of this case to the commercialization, and the invention of this case can be commercialized only through a company equipped with large-scale plant facilities as an invention for the manufacturing method of chemical substances. It constitutes a circumstance to raise the defendant's contribution.

On the other hand, the development of the mid-to-date sheet for the manufacture of the PETA was difficult to resolve by the introduction of foreign technology. Although the Plaintiff does not fall under the scope of his duties, the Plaintiff led to the process of voluntarily and repeatedly taking technical measures to solve the above problems and repeatedly realizing them, and the Plaintiff is also involved in the plant construction, mass production system construction, license contract, etc. after the invention of this case, it constitutes a situation that the Plaintiff should raise the level of contribution of the Plaintiff compared to the ordinary work invention.

The defendant asserts that the invention of this case can easily be derived from prior art that had been secured by the new price (PCT international application No. 94/05719). Thus, the plaintiff's contribution should be considered to be lower. Thus, the plaintiff's contribution is identical or similar to the Kaol Kaol, as presented in the above prior art, and the site's molecular formula of the invention of this case. However, the difference between its structure and purpose, and the reaction mechanism as a promotion, and the new tytisium transfer the right to obtain a patent for the above prior art to the BASF company around June 1995, by transferring the right to obtain a patent for the above prior art to the BASF company without the permission of the BASF company, and the invention of this case is recognized as non-obviousness from the above prior art as a result of revising the physical nature of old soil, which is the raw material of promotion, and the defendant's assertion is without merit in light of the above fact that the patent registration of this case is recognized.

Comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that 75% of the contribution made by users, including the Defendant, etc., to be 75%, and the Plaintiff’s contribution as 25%, and the Plaintiff’s contribution as 25% (the second contract concluded after the Plaintiff’s retirement, but this is deemed to have been on the extension of the first contract, and the Plaintiff’s contribution is deemed to have been on the extension of the first contract).

(E) Contribution ratio of the plaintiff

Examining the background of the invention in this case and the roles of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 3, etc., the person who contributed to the invention in this case is the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, etc. performed their roles within their respective limits in collecting and testing raw materials at the Plaintiff’s instruction. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s contribution to the invention in this case was 80% (the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s contribution to the invention in this case is a contribution to the invention in this case, and the circumstance that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shared the invention with the contribution of “PETG and plant engineering” thereafter does not interfere with the recognition)

(5) Calculation of the transfer price equivalent to the employee’s invention compensation

(A) own implementation

According to Gap evidence No. 30, the cumulative sales from 2000 to 2008 constitute 653,701,000,000 (no part of Gap evidence No. 36 against this).

Sales of 200 50,290,000,000 20170,445,000,000,000 202 54,594,000,000 2000 59,146,000,777,000,000 2005 79,698,000,0000 2000 2005 79,698,000,000 63,069,0000,0000 200784,563,000,000,2000 2000 208,119,0000,000 653,000,0000,000

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 36 and 39, only five companies including the defendant, domestically owned by the defendant, only one company since 2007, the defendant's domestic market share is about 1 trillion won, and the defendant's expected sales for 10 years in the future can be recognized as being up to 1 trillion won. As seen earlier, PTPPG sales are high demand for raw materials such as strins and artificial leather, the defendant's increase in the annual sales in TPPMG sales in 19-34% since 2006, especially the sales in 2008 belongs to 101,119,000,000,000 won, 300,000 won per annum from June 1, 2015, 2009 to 301.6 billion won per year from 200,000 won per annum of the patent right term expiration date.

본문내 포함된 표 연도 추정매출액 현가 2009 72,633,000,000 72,633,000,000 2010 72,633,000,000 69,174,285,541 2011 72,633,000,000 66,030,000,066 2012 72,633,000,000 63,159,130,624 2013 72,633,000,000 60,527,499,758 2014 72,633,000,000 58,106,400,000 합계 ？ 389,630,315,990

Therefore, the amount calculated by taking into account the sales amount as seen earlier, the profits accrued from the monopoly, the royalty rate (1%) the inventor compensation rate (1-Defendant's contribution limit, 25%) the amount of contribution to the invention (80%) and the amount of contribution to the invention (80%) is as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 연도 계산 인용 금액 2000~2008 653,701,000,000원×1/2×실시료율 1%×원고의 공헌도 25%×원고의 기여도 80% = 653,701,000 2009~2015 389,630,315,990원×1/2×실시료율 1%×원고의 공헌도 25%×원고의 기여도 80% = 389,630,316 합계 ？ 1,043,331,316

(b)the royalty revenue.

(i) license fees from the Director of the Republic of Korea;

A) The primary contract (2002)

Around August 2002, the Defendant entered into an agreement on the supply of PTMG technology transfer, plant (15,000 tons a year) design documents and the supply of major machinery, equipment and promotional items into USD 20,580,000. Of them, the actual contract price for LTM&D 11,270,000 dollars among them is about USD 11,270,000 (No. 12 evidence, exchange rate is 1,180 won per exchange rate applied at the time of the Defendant’s internal settlement report around 2004).

B) The second contract (2008)

Around 2008, the Defendant entered into a double-lane PETG manufacturing factory design and technology licensing agreement with the Director of the Industrial Complex, and the scale of the contract is above the first contract. Of which the contract amount due to the said first contract is presumed to be at least USD 11,270,000, which is the price for the same item at the time of the said first contract (see, e.g., Nonparty 1’s testimony, evidence No. 12, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the pertinent price out of the second contract amount reaches USD 16,00,000,000, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this. The exchange rate is applied to KRW 80,80,000).

(ii) licenses from CNPC companies;

Around July 2004, the defendant entered into a PTMG manufacturing factory (20,00 tons a year) design and technology licensing agreement with QNPC manufacturer, a subsidiary of CNPC company. Among them, the price for LTM&C & 11,000,000 US dollars is about 13,31,32, and the exchange rate is 1140 Won (A shall apply).

(iii) calculation;

The profits of the defendant, etc. calculated by converting the price for the above L&C&Dow into Korean won, taking into account the ratio of the invention in this case to the Korean won (20%), the ratio of the inventor’s compensation rate (1-Defendant’s contribution, 25%) the degree of contribution to the invention (80%) and the ratio of contribution to the invention (80%) are as follows:

1,270,00 won x 1180 won x 13,298,600,000 won x 11,2700 won x 1121.80 won x 12,642,686,000 CNPC company 11,000 won x 140 won x 140 won x 38,481,286,000 won x 38,481,286,00 won x 20% of the invention of this case x 20% of the Plaintiff’s contribution x 12,642,686,00 won x 80% of the Plaintiff’s contribution x 25% of the Plaintiff’s contribution x 1,539,251,440 won.

(6) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant. The defendant is entitled to pay the plaintiff's profits 1,043,331,316 won (=653,701,00 won + estimated profits 653,701,00 won from 200 to 2008 + estimated profits 389,630,316 won from 209 to 2014) and the profits 1,539,251,40 won in total, 2,582,582,756 won in total, and its delayed payment amount from the 31st day of March 30, 205, which was the 30th day following the plaintiff's peremptory notice for the performance of its payment obligation, and it is difficult to view that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the plaintiff's new profits from the 30th day following the agreement under the Civil Act until February 11, 2010 to the day of complete payment (the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's delayed payment damages.

4. Determination on the application for registration of transfer of a patent

H. The plaintiff's assertion

In a case where an implied transfer agreement on the right to obtain a patent of this case is acknowledged between the plaintiff and the new Telecommunication, as long as the above agreement does not prove that the transfer price is a gratuitous transfer, the defendant who takes over the obligation to pay the patent of this case does not deny the existence of the obligation to pay the plaintiff the transfer price equivalent to the patent value of this case. This constitutes an obvious declaration of refusal of performance. Thus, the plaintiff cancelled the implied transfer agreement on the ground of the defendant's refusal of performance by serving the application for change of the purport of the patent of this case and the cause of the claim on May 28, 2009. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to perform the transfer registration procedure of the patent of

(i) Markets;

On the other hand, this case’s “the right to obtain a patent” refers to the Plaintiff and the parties to the transfer agreement, and even according to the above conditions, the Defendant succeeded to the payment obligation following the transfer from the merger of the new Tittyty through the comprehensive takeover of business, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant acquired the status of the parties to the transfer agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the transfer agreement and the legitimate counterpart to the notice of cancellation is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for payment of the money is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remainder is dismissed as without merit (in case of partial acceptance of the main claim, no preliminary claim shall be judged). The plaintiff's claim for transfer registration of patent shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, according to the plaintiff's expansion of the plaintiff's claim for transfer registration of patent, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified according to the above recognition scope, and the claim for transfer registration of patent added in the trial shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1]

Judges Hwang Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)