The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,533,714 won and 17,035,835 won among them, 5% interest per annum from September 14, 2007 to August 20, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four minutes shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 11.

A. The relationship between the parties

(1) On August 2, 2002, the Defendant Company: (a) was established by dividing the medicine, agrochemical, animal medicine, etc. into “ELSA”; and (b) on April 3, 2001, the “stock company ELSA” changed from “ELSA”; and (c) the “stock company ELSA” on February 24, 1995.

(2) On October 1994, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company’s Technical Research Institute and worked as a person in charge of various research tasks, development team leader, business team leader, etc. in the field of agricultural chemicals and retired on June 1, 2007.

B. Current status of patent application and patent registration of the patented invention related to the instant case

(1) On April 16, 1997, the defendant company succeeded to the right to obtain a patent from the plaintiff, the non-party 4, 5, 2, and 6 stated in a joint inventor in a patent application, and filed a patent application with the application number 1997-013940 and the registration number 209294.

(2) On October 12, 200, the Defendant Company acquired the right to obtain a patent from the Plaintiff, Nonparty 4, 7, 2, 8, 3, 9, 10, and 11 as a joint inventor, and filed the patent application with the number of the patent application, and filed the patent registration with the registration number of 200-000-0590, and the registration number of 399366.

(c) Details of each patented invention;

(1) The scope of the patent application for the patented invention 1 and its main contents: 0.1 to 30% of the 0.30% of the 0.1 through 30% of the 0.1 through 30% of the 1stalthalthal of polyethylene terecene non-ionability agents and of the 1st or more of the ionalthal teralthal terroids in a broad area, which contain 5 to 40% of the mixtures and 40 to 40 to 90 to 40 to 90% of the composition, and which contain 40 to 40 to 40 to 90 percentage of the composition, and which are highly salivable products in a broad area, and there is no high salivability in storage, and there is no high salvability in storage.

(2) The scope and main contents of the claim for the patent of the patented invention 2: with respect to rice farming, it is related to the solidine, polylidine, its salts or three-dimensional dypology, its salts or three-dimensional dypology, the method of use, manufacturing methods, the intermediate compound used to manufacture the inducement, and the scopic composition (general name is referred to as "Flpintoltollon"; hereinafter referred to as "Plutostollon") which are characterized by the characteristics of the production of the inducement.

2. Determination of the patented invention under Article 1

A. Whether the Plaintiff is a joint inventor of the first patented invention

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or it is acknowledged that Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 7 through 10, evidence 14-1, 2, Gap evidence 16, 17, Gap evidence 25, 26, Gap evidence 27-1, Eul evidence 1-8, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 30-1 through 30, evidence 30-2 and the testimony of non-party 8 and non-party 2 of the court of first instance, which correspond to the fact that the plaintiff is merely a general management of the complex in relation to the patented invention of the first instance, and the testimony of non-party 5 of the court of first instance is not sufficient to believe that evidence 4, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 3, 34 and evidence 34 and evidence 5 of non-party 1-5 of the court of first instance, and the testimony of non-party 1-4 and evidence 3-4 of the court of first instance is not sufficient to admit evidence 1-1-3.

(A) From around October 1994, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company as “At first PL” (which is distinguished from GL, a general manager, to a position where a person who has the ability to develop and commercialize a product is in charge of an experimental aspect in a specific field, and who is capable of developing and commercializing the product, is in charge of the position where the Defendant Company participated in the experimental aspect in the specific field, and is in charge of the general manager, at the time of entry of the Plaintiff. Nonparty 4 was higher than the Plaintiff, and the working-level research team was in charge of Nonparty 1, 5,12, etc., and Nonparty 1, who was in charge of the research on the proposal, retired on August 1995.

(B) On 191, prior to the Plaintiff’s membership, the Defendant Company had two patent-related material patents and six patent-related patent-related methods. The Defendant Company had already held two patent-related material patents and six patent-related methods. The Defendant Company had previously held five patent-related material patents. The Defendant Company had previously held five patent-related material patents and six patent-related methods.

(C) The Defendant Company entered into a joint test contract with the Plaintiff on March 1994, which entered into the Plaintiff’s membership, and entered into a joint test contract with the Defendant Company from April 1994 to October 199, using the “drawing” (drawings; hereinafter “drawings”) that was developed between April 194 and October 194, and used the “drawings” (drawings; hereinafter “drawings”) for the purpose thereof. In addition, Nonparty 1 conducted a research and experiment between February 194 and March 3, 1994 for the purpose of the research on the production, which was the basic level that could not lead to any reinforcement or specific conclusion by additional research.

(D) However, as the scamben scam, which is a scamben material with low melting level, if the scamben scamben scam is experimentally melted to scamn and spread it to scamn, it would have the medicinal effect, but if the scamben scamscam is made by using the scam active agents used in the manufacturing of ordinary scamscams so that farmers can use it, if the scamben scamscamscamscamben in water, even if the scamben scamscamscamscamscamben scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscambi

(E) Accordingly, the Plaintiff was demanded to resolve such peculiar issues as above in light of the manufacturing nature of “Article 1,” and the Plaintiff had Nonparty 2 conduct research on the manufacturing process from the mid-195 to the end of February 1996, and had to submit an official test sample until the end of February 1996. As such, the Plaintiff directly participated in the registration test, toxicity test, mass production process, and remaining test, etc. required at the stage of commercialization from the end of February 1995, and the Plaintiff attempted to provide a theoretical basis for the volume of the death of the main agents.

(F) In addition, the Plaintiff revealed that one of the reasons with severe changes in efficacy, efficacy, and harmfulness of Pariben meeting is due to the increase in the attachment volume by spraying conditions, enjoyment, mixed use, etc., and instructed Nonparty 8, May 1, 1999 to participate directly and indirectly in the evaluation of the initial force and the evaluation of the attachment capacity, such as ordering Nonparty 8 to improve this issue. In this case, the Plaintiff’s method of assessing attachment capacity, while standardizing the attachment capacity, applied ideas.

(G) As a result, the Plaintiff et al. visited Vietnam and China including Vietnam to apply for patent registration data on December 12, 1996 and obtained a patent on February 1, 1997 following a three-month review. On February 1997, the Plaintiff et al.: (a) the product “Pyanor” using lebenium (an existing medicine is assessed as a starting product capable of removing 15 kinds of miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneouss such as skin, matrins, and self-returns that cannot be eradicated; (b) the Plaintiff et al. conducted technical seminars, local experiments, etc.; (c) the Plaintiff et al. visited Vietnam for the first time; and (d) the Plaintiff et al. were exported from the world of 10 countries at least 1997; and (d) the product first produced 10% of 10% of active ingredients such as 10% of gypt 30%).

(h) On February 2, 1998, the Plaintiff received application compensation and registration compensation from the Defendant Company. On April 29, 2005, the Plaintiff received the technical skills from the Korea Job Association in relation to the development of the “Pyribenzoo”, and published the thesis “Development of the New Job Pool” in No. 25 No. 4 ( December 2005) of the Korea Job Association No. 25 (No. 2005).

(i) The Japanese Cuba Chemical Industry brought an action against the patent of Switzerland, which is an effective ingredient of Nomine, on the ground that the Ecuasium infringed on the patent of Nomine, which is an effective ingredient of Nomine, and the Plaintiff participated in the action as the representative of the Defendant Company on the part of the Defendant Company, and the lawsuit was concluded by agreement around 2004.

(2) Determination

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Patent Act provides that "Invention means the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing rules of nature." Ultimately, an inventor is "a person who creates a method of good and repeated realization of technical means to solve any problem." Therefore, according to the above-mentioned facts as to this case, the plaintiff is unable to develop so-called PL for the purpose of productization, such as the proper method of use and usage, the name of proper use and substance-specific activity of the defendant company for the purpose of productization, which can best be seen from the final product form, including the development of preparations, toxicity test, registration test, large administrative agency's approval and permission-level, overseas development leading (the strategic cooperation and overseas trading line development, various contracts, and technical marketing), overseas development leading (the strategic cooperation and overseas trade marketing), and defense related to patent dispute, and the whole process has been commercialized as a whole, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to develop the patented invention as a so-called PL and to realize the invention as well as the research and development of the new invention within the department.

(b) Calculation of compensation for employee inventions;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a joint inventor of the patented invention 1 and the Pessia court was unable to commercialize the patented invention before the date of the first invention. The first invention made it possible to commercialize the product with the patented invention x 70% of profits under the exclusive status of the defendant company 1 x 30% of the plaintiff company's invention x 50% of the plaintiff's joint inventor x 30% of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of March 3, 2006; hereinafter the "former Patent Act") since the plaintiff's employer succeeded to the right to obtain a patent for the first patented invention from the joint inventor such as the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the compensation for the employee's invention under Article 40 (1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of March 3, 206; hereinafter the "former Patent Act"). The defendant company sold the product manufactured with the psia, such as the product name x the product name x x 1000%, x 5050% of the plaintiff.

(2) Amount of employee’s invention compensation

(A) Criteria for the occurrence and calculation of claims for employee’s invention compensation

1) A claim for employee’s invention compensation

A) Article 4 of the Addenda to the Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006) provides that "the succession of the right to obtain a patent, etc., or the right to obtain a patent, etc., or the right to obtain an exclusive license, or the compensation for the establishment of an exclusive license, made under the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force shall be governed by the previous provisions of the Patent Act." The plaintiff's first patented invention has been succeeded to the right to obtain a patent before March 3, 2006, as seen earlier. As such, the issue of whether the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for employee's invention and the amount of compensation to be paid in detail to the plaintiff shall be governed by Articles 39 and 40

(1) If an employee, corporation, or the State or a local government (hereinafter referred to as "employer, etc.") makes an invention in connection with his/her duties, by nature, falls under the scope of the duties of the employer, corporation, or the State or a local government (hereinafter referred to as "employee, etc.") and if the employee, etc. has obtained a patent or succeeds to the right to obtain a patent for an invention that belongs to the present or past duties of the employee, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "employee invention"), the employer, etc. shall have an ordinary license on the patent right.

Article 40 (Compensation for Employee’s Invention) (1) Employees shall have the right to obtain reasonable compensation, if they have the employer succeed to the right to obtain a patent for an employee’s invention or the patent right for an employee’s invention in accordance with a contract or employment regulations or have the employer succeed to

(2) In determining the amount of compensation under paragraph (1), the amount of benefits that the employer, etc. should obtain by the invention, and the degree of contribution of the employer, etc. to the completion of the invention shall be taken into consideration. In such cases, matters necessary for the standards for the payment of compensation shall be prescribed by

B) However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant Company, succeeded to the right to obtain a patent for the first invention constituting a joint employee’s invention and caused the Defendant Company, the employer, to file a patent application or register the establishment thereof in its name. Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay reasonable compensation to the Plaintiff, the joint inventor, under the provisions of the Patent Act, barring special circumstances.

2) Time and criteria for calculating employee invention compensation

According to the above provisions, it is reasonable to calculate the specific amount of employee's invention compensation by comprehensively taking into account the factors such as ① the amount of profit that the employer would gain by the employee's invention (the amount of profit that the employer would gain), ② the contribution of the employer and employees to the invention (the compensation rate for the inventor), ③ the contribution rate of the inventor among the inventions where a joint inventor exists (the contribution rate of

Meanwhile, the employee invention compensation may be divided into an invention compensation, application/registration compensation, license/disposition compensation, etc. according to the nature of the “profit that the employer would obtain by the employee’s invention.” In this case, the Plaintiff sought compensation based on the amount of profit earned by the Defendant Company by the patent until April 16, 2017, which is the duration of the patented invention 1, and thus, the calculation criteria are examined.

First, the profit to be obtained by the employer is the basis for the calculation of the employee's work invention, and the employee's employer acquires a non-exclusive license without compensation (Article 39(1) of the former Patent Act). The profit to be obtained by the employee's work invention refers to the profit that the employer can obtain by transferring the right to obtain a patent or the patent to the employee's invention beyond the non-exclusive license, and the profit that the employer can obtain by transferring the right to obtain a patent to the employee's invention exclusively and exclusively, and the royalty rate at the time of granting permission to the third party (the exclusive profit that the employer gains by prohibiting the third party from implementing the invention if the employer executes the invention by itself) should be considered.

Second, in calculating compensation for implementation, an employer's future profit is the basis for calculating the amount of profit. In accordance with the above provision, in principle, the time of calculating profit is interpreted as the time when an employer succeeds to the right to obtain a patent or the patent right. Thus, it should be based on the calculation of compensation for future profit reasonably anticipated to be obtained by an employer from an employee's invention. However, there are many difficulties in calculating compensation for implementation in advance at the time of the succession of right. As such, it is reasonable to consider specific circumstances that occurred until the time of claim after the succession of right, such as the performance of an actual implementation contract, whether a contract is made for implementation of a self-produced product, and sales, etc., and if an employer actually gains profit from the implementation of an employee's invention, it should be viewed as the "interest that could have been obtained at the time of succession" to the minimum amount of profit realized, barring any special circumstances.

Third, the employer’s profit refers only to “the profit to be earned by the employee’s invention itself” and does not mean the remaining amount of financial profit (sales profit, operating profit, etc.) after the settlement of profit and expenses. Thus, the mere fact that considerable research expenses are spent in the course of the snow company’s invention and that there is no balance of profit and expenses when settlement of profit and expenses is made (However, the circumstance that the employer paid considerable expenses to the research expenses can be considered at the stage of determining the inventor’s compensation rate).

3) The defendant company's assertion

The defendant company asserts that the employee's invention compensation should be presented in accordance with the employee's invention compensation rules (No. 14-1) of the defendant company, and that the plaintiff's claim for the employee's invention should be dismissed since there is no amount of compensation to be paid according to the above provisions. Thus, even if there is a provision regarding the amount of compensation to be paid to the employer, etc. by the employer, etc. under the work rules, if the amount of compensation does not reach the amount of compensation set under the patent law, the defendant company can seek payment of compensation equivalent to the shortage. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(B) The amount of profit of the employer;

1) The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5-1, 5-1, 19, 22-3, 3, 22-2, 28-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 21-1, 3-2, and 33 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 19, 22-3, and 28-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-3, and 21-1, 33 of the evidence No.

A) The cumulative sales amount of 31,648,00,000 won until 2008 for the 2008 Parienb event (i.e., cumulative sales amount of 25,08,000,000 won until 2007 + sales amount of 6,560,000,000 won in 208; and the estimated sales amount of 9 years until the expiration date of the patent right shall be 4,06,826,58 won (as of the last day of each year, 2017 as of April 16, 2017) (i.e., the estimated sales amount of each year (as of the end of each year, 2017 as of April 16, 201) were converted into the cumulative sales amount of 25,088,000 won in 209,000 won in 207 as of May 1, 2009).

The estimated sales for the calendar year included in the main sentence (3) 2009 4,876,00,000,004,737,813,765 2010 5,897,000,464,401,54442,32,000,500 598,819,8126,634,000,000,0005,626,626,007,067 208,67208,000,000,667,0005,67,6307,630,640,645,745,7206,67,6305,67,6305,205,67,6305,205,6365,207,63065,765,208,65,2075,6365,2067

B) The profit that the Defendant Company may obtain from the fact that the employee invention can be conducted exclusively and exclusively by succession to the first patented invention beyond a non-exclusive license shall first be considered 1/4 due to the exclusive effect of the first patented invention for working by the Defendant Company (in particular, in the case of a foreign sector, the exclusive nature of the Defendant Company is weak) from the total sales, and the usage fee rate of the pesticide industry shall also be deemed 3% and calculated on the basis of 567,861,19 won (=75,714,826,58 won x 1/4 x 0.03 x less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) In regard to this, the defendant company's 3% at the present market, and 5% product, even though the content of the mapal active agents is limited to 5-40% in the patented invention 1, it is actually manufactured and sold even though the content of the mapal active agents is limited to 45% and does not belong to the claims of the first patented invention. However, the product is not necessarily included in the technical scope of the patented invention. In other words, if the product has contributed to the sale of the substitute product in the prohibition of the implementation of the competitive company, it can be evaluated as the profit acquired by the user. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(C) The inventor compensation rate

The Plaintiff asserts that the compensation rate for the joint inventor of the patented invention 1 should be 50%. As such, the Defendant Company, which is able to know by the aforementioned evidence, invested 25% to 30% of annual sales of the patented invention each year until the time when the first invention is registered, as research and development expenses, the research and development expenses for the Pentsium up to 12.8 billion won until 2007. As for the Pentsium, there are two patents for material patents and six patents for the Pentsium before the Plaintiff entered as a result of such investment, and even if the basic level was attained, the Defendant’s contribution to the first patented invention was determined as 90%, and the compensation rate for the joint inventor is 10%.

(D) The Plaintiff’s contribution rate

If there are two or more inventors who have the right to receive compensation, the compensation shall be paid in proportion to each inventor's contribution ratio. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, five persons including the plaintiff are joint inventors, the plaintiff takes the overall invention process while working as so-called PL, and the non-party 4, who is registered as a joint inventor, appears to be a general manager, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's contribution ratio as one of the five joint inventors of the first patented invention is 30%.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, in full view of the above calculation results, the reasonable compensation for the employee’s invention to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the payment of the invention 17,035,835 won (i.e., 567,861,19 won x inventor’s compensation rate of 10% x Plaintiff’s contribution rate of 10%). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 14, 2007, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the Plaintiff from September 14, 2007, which is the day when the Defendant rendered a considerable decision on August 20, 209, which is the day when the Defendant paid a considerable amount of dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, from the next day to the day of full payment.

(3) Extinctive prescription of the defendant company

The defendant company asserted that even if the plaintiff has the right to claim compensation for employee's invention, the plaintiff transferred all rights to the patented invention to the defendant company on November 29, 1996. The lawsuit of this case was filed on August 31, 2007 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for employee's invention has expired by prescription. Thus, the claim of this case is without merit.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim an employee’s invention compensation is completed if it is not exercised for 10 years as in the general bond, and its starting point can generally be seen as the time of patent registration or patent succession. However, if the payment time is determined in the work rules, etc., it should be interpreted that there is a legal obstacle to the exercise of the right to receive the due compensation until the payment time arrives, and that the payment time becomes the starting point of the extinctive prescription of the right to receive the due compensation.

According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 14-1, the company’s evaluation of the right to obtain a patent for the invention as of November 29, 1996. The company’s evaluation of the first invention as of November 1, 1996 shall pay compensation as prescribed by this provision if the company succeeds to the right under the preceding Article (Article 5), and the company’s evaluation of the right to obtain a patent for the invention as of the date of the first invention as of November 29, 1996. According to the Plaintiff’s evaluation of the right to obtain a patent for the invention as of the first time after the date of publication of the invention as of the first time of publication of the invention (Article 16), the company’s evaluation of the right to obtain a patent for the invention as of the first time after the date of publication of the invention as of the first time after the date of publication of the invention as of January 1, 196, the company’s evaluation of the right to obtain an employee invention as of the first time.

3. Determination of the second patented invention

A. Whether the Plaintiff is a joint inventor of the second patented invention

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence 18, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 20-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-2, and non-party 7's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument. On the contrary, Eul evidence 27-2, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff is merely a general management of the patented invention with regard to Eul's patented invention, is not believed, and it is insufficient to reverse the following facts, and there is no counter-proof.

(A) At around 198, the Plaintiff proposed a joint research with Nonparty 3 to develop the above materials as a domestic first-aid product, on the ground that Nonparty 3’s first-aid candidate (K11451) manufactured by the Korean Institute of Chemical Research came to know that the ability to control the skin is superior to the other first-aid systems in the New-aid System, but the effect is unstable, and that the productization was suspended for 7 years in the middle of the late 1998, and then, Nonparty 3 provided the Plaintiff with the first-aid candidate (K11451, K1293, etc.).

(B) The Plaintiff proposed the idea and new method of assessing the effect that the harmfulness will be overcome by adding other protective devices to the fishery source of K1451 and K1293, among the primary materials provided by Nonparty 3, and participated in the experiment process, selected LGC-42153 (Plutolon) among the modified materials (K1293), and filed a patent application with Nonparty 3, etc. around 2000. Plutofur theory is evaluated to have a very low amount of medicine, unlike other primary materials of the Libybyan City, which has outstanding pest control effect against skin, and most of the plants are effectively eradicated by light and soil treatment, but it is deemed that stability for rice.

(C) In order to compensate for the contribution of the Chemical Research Institute, the Defendant Company paid the transfer fee of KRW 350 million to Nonparty 3 on condition of licensing three patent related to the patent held by Nonparty 3, and agreed to pay 300 million in the ordinary technology license fee up to the patent duration. The Defendant Company separately registered two patent related to the manufacturing method.

(D) On March 25, 2004, on the basis of the second patented invention, the Defendant Company registered a product, such as “FLUXO” as a rice lux, and manufactured and sold the product. The second patented invention was registered in 15 countries, and the said product was registered in 2006 in China as the main market in Korea and Japan.

(2) Determination

The meaning of the "invention and inventor" is as seen earlier, and according to the above facts, the plaintiff is deemed to have performed the work to commercialize the first-aid substance for which the commercialization had been suspended for a considerable period of time after the non-party 3 obtained the material patent, and in the process, the plaintiff is a joint inventor of the second-aid invention in consideration of the following: the plaintiff is deemed to have performed the work to commercialize the first-aid substance as a manager; the plaintiff has made the father and his father develop and realize it; the research in the department to which he belongs is mixed; and the research in the department to which he belongs is mixed; and even though it is difficult to do so, the plaintiff is also a joint inventor of the second-aid invention.

(b) Calculation of compensation for employee inventions;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff and the non-party 3 of the Korean Chemical Research Institute made an invention of flusium and production methods, which are new materials that have modified the invention made before the non-party 3 through joint research. The defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the compensation for employee's invention since the plaintiff's employer succeeded to the plaintiff's right to obtain a patent for the second patented invention. The defendant company is obligated to pay 8,412,00,000 won for operating income earned from the second patented invention by selling the products such as flusium, including only a single component of flusium, to China, Japan, etc., including Korea, and 8,412,00,00 won for operating income earned from the second patented invention, and the profits ratio of the defendant's exclusive status is 70% for the plaintiff, 50% for the plaintiff's contribution, and the amount of the plaintiff's contribution ratio is 2,061,000 won for the plaintiff's reasonable compensation to be paid to the plaintiff.

(2) Amount of employee’s invention compensation

(A) Criteria for the occurrence and calculation of claims for employee’s invention compensation

In this case, by October 12, 2020, the duration of the second patented invention, the Plaintiff sought compensation based on the profit gained by the Defendant Company by granting a patent, i.e., the payment of compensation for work, and other relevant regulations regarding the occurrence of the right to claim compensation for the employee’s invention, the timing for calculation and calculation thereof are as seen earlier.

(B) The amount of profit of the employer;

1) The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 19, Gap evidence Nos. 22, and Eul evidence Nos. 28, and there are no objections contrary to Gap evidence No. 33.

A) The cumulative sales amount to the year 2008 of Plutolon was KRW 4,292,00,00 (i.e., cumulative sales amounting to KRW 3,772,00,000 until 207 + 520,00,000 in 208 + sales amounting to KRW 520,000 in 208. Furthermore, the estimated sales amount for 12 years until the expiration date of the patent right period is KRW 46,952,698,696 [the estimated sales amount for each year (as of October 12, 2020 as of the end of each year, 201)] of KRW 2 of the patented invention was converted by the Defendant Company’s succession to the compensation amount until the claim was made (as of October 12, 2020). Accordingly, the cumulative sales amount was ultimately converted to KRW 3,772,000,00,000 in the present price as of May 209).

본문내 포함된 표 연도 추정매출액(을제29호증의 2) 현가 2009 1,309,000,000 1,271,902,834 2010 2,130,000,000 1,973,745,173 2011 3,158,000,000 2,796,752,767 2012 4,315,000,000 3,659,363,957 2013 4,915,000,000 3,998,644,367 2014 5,580,000,000 4,362,214,983 2015 6,170,000,000 4,642,006,269 2016 6,679,000,000 4,842,779,456 2017 7,022,000,000 4,913,352,769 2018 7,344,000,000 4,964,957,746 2019 7,446,000,000 4,869,318,801 2020 7,297,000,000 4,657,659,574 ？ 63,365,000,000 46,952,698,696

B) The profit that the Defendant Company may obtain from the fact that the employee invention can be exclusively and exclusively worked beyond a non-exclusive license by succeeding the second patented invention shall be deemed 1/3 due to the exclusive effect of the second patented invention for working by the Defendant Company, and the portion arising from the exclusive effect of the second patented invention for working by the Defendant Company shall also be deemed 512,446,986 won (=51,24,698,696 won x 1/3 x 0.03) if it is calculated by deeming the royalty rate of the agricultural chemical industry to be 3% in consideration of the fact that the royalty rate of the second patented invention is set at 3%.

(C) The inventor compensation rate

The Defendant Company, which is able to know by the aforementioned evidence, invested 25%-30% of annual sales and research and development expenses each year, among them, the research and development expenses for Plutoglon up to 12.7 billion won until 2007. The second patented invention includes materials, preparations, core intermediates, and manufacturing methods. Among them, the core is the invention for Plutoglon material, which is the result of joint research by the Plaintiff and the Korea Chemical Research Institute based on the candidate material already claimed by the Korea Chemical Research Institute. The Defendant Company received three related patents and separately registered two patents for related manufacturing methods, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant Company’s contribution to the second patented invention is 80% and the compensation rate for joint inventors is 20%.

(D) The Plaintiff’s contribution rate

If there are two or more inventors who have the right to receive compensation, the compensation shall be paid in proportion to each inventor's contribution ratio. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the two patented inventions include nine plaintiffs, and the plaintiff takes the lead in the whole invention process together with the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 who is registered as a joint inventor appears to be a general manager, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's contribution ratio as one of the nine joint inventors of the second patented inventions is 20%.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, in full view of the above calculation results, the reasonable compensation for the employee’s invention to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the patent invention No. 20,497,879 won (i.e., 20% of the employer’s profit) (i., 512,446,986 won x inventor’s compensation rate of 20%). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from December 19, 2007 to August 20, 2009, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for expansion of claim of this case’s claim, for the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, from the next day to the day of complete payment.

4. Determination on the defendant's assertion that compensation was already paid

The Defendant Company paid a reasonable amount of annual salary by entering the Plaintiff in order to have the Plaintiff perform the work of productization of the invention 1 and 2, etc. The Plaintiff paid compensation corresponding to the Plaintiff’s work performed. Even if the compensation to be paid to the Plaintiff is recognized, the claim for compensation for employee’s invention, which is recognized by the Patent Act, should be deemed to have already been paid by the amount already paid. However, the claim for compensation for employee’s invention recognized by the Patent Act, is recognized to protect and promote the rights and interests of employees in poor status compared to the business operator, and the provisions of the former Patent Act on compensation for employee’s invention, are mandatory. Thus, the contract or work regulations imposing any restriction on the occurrence, exercise, and reasonable amount of the claim for compensation for employee’s invention are invalid. Furthermore, the employee’s invention compensation is a statutory claim recognized as a consideration for the transfer of the right to obtain a patent, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the payment of compensation for employee’s invention was substituted by the ordinary wage, performance rate, etc. without express agreement between the parties. In light of these legal principles, the Defendant Company’s assertion that the compensation was paid to the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,533,714 won (=17,035 won of patented invention 17,035,835 + 20,497,879 won of patented invention 20,035) and 17,035,835 won of the patented invention 17,007,000 won from September 14, 2007; 20,497,879 won with 5% per annum from December 19, 2007 to August 20, 209, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above recognized scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the payment of the cited portion of the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding to the above amount shall be revoked, and the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Hwang Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)