기술사용료
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an exclusive licensee of a patent (patent number E) pertaining to “C” (one-person referred to as “D”).
The Plaintiff received 3,300 won per square meter (including value-added tax) from a subcontractor, such as the Defendant, etc. as the above patent technology user fee.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the above patent technology user fee is 3,300 won per square meter (including value-added tax).
B. On September 2017, the Defendant, using the foregoing patent technology, processed and supplied stones of 1,416 square meters at the F-style Housing Construction Site (hereinafter “First Site”) and supplied them; ② around November 2018, processed and supplied stones of 1,766 square meters at the new construction site (hereinafter “second site”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a royalty of 10,50,600,600 for patent technology (=the portion of KRW 4,672,80 for the first site x 3,300 for the second site 5,827,800 for the second site (=1,416 square meters x 1,766 square meters x 3,300 square meters).
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the first site stone suppliers were “H” and the Defendant was only processed as a request of H, and thus, the obligation to pay usage fees is not the Defendant, but the Defendant. However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the person who used the above patent technology as the Defendant who processed the stone instead of H as the Defendant who processed the stone. As such, the person liable to pay usage fees in relation to the Plaintiff ought to be regarded as the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff appears to have been undermining the Plaintiff’s intent to pay usage fees for patent technology in relation to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff appears to have allowed processing of the stone in the event that there was a company, other than the Plaintiff’s collaborative company, with the Plaintiff’s intent to pay usage fees for patent technology (the Plaintiff argued that there was
The defendant claims to H for processing costs, including patent technology royalties.