Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Justice Hong Jin-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Attorney Han Jin-soo and Justice Nam-hee

2. On April 3, 2017, the revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of the new product certification for B (Certification Number: C) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of selling electric equipment and appliances, electrical construction business, etc.

(b) The National Technical Standards Institute, an affiliated agency of the defendant, established to take charge of the affairs such as the establishment and operation of national standards policies and industrial standardization policies, and support for the establishment of the national standards system, is operating a new product (NEP) certification system and a public institution's compulsory purchase, etc. in accordance with Articles 16 and 17 of the Industrial

C. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the certification of a new product with respect to “B” (hereinafter “new product”) in the National Technical Standards Institute.

D. At the time of the submission of the application for the certification of a new product of this case, the Plaintiff submitted to the National Technical Standards Institute, attached with the certificate of performance of the supply (sale) of the goods, stating that the Plaintiff supplied “N” for the manufacture and purchase of the MM water distribution team to the Korea Medium & Medium Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Medium & Medium Development”) at the contract price of KRW 275 million.

E. The president of the National Technical Standards Institute demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the results of a certified test within six months of the instant new product (the results of a double floor) and the data to prove the relationship between the patentee and the Plaintiff. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted the test report to the Plaintiff, “On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a test at the time of six months and applied for a test, and submitted the test on February 10, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff sold the new product by the time of the first examination, and the face-to-face device installed with a exhaustr device at all times, not a core technology, and the number of patents (patent registration number F) are replaced by the exclusive license for patent use.”

F. The National Technical Standards Institute concluded a business agreement with Q Center affiliated with the P Association to efficiently conduct the evaluation of new products, and had Q Center conduct the evaluation of new products from January 1, 2015. On February 27, 2015, Q Center held a meeting of the Evaluation Committee on New Products Certification, and all members of Q Center agreed on the continuation of the examination of new products certification.

G. On March 5, 2015, the Committee for the Evaluation of New Products Certification conducted on the Plaintiff’s factory located in the G of the wife population as to the new product of this case.

H. On March 20, 2015, Qu Center held a deliberation committee for new products to deliberate and resolve on whether the instant new products meet the standards for certification. Accordingly, on March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a new product certificate with respect to the instant new products from March 24, 2015 to March 23, 2018 with respect to the term of validity from March 24, 2015, and the Qu Center notified the Plaintiff on March 26, 2015 to grant the Plaintiff the qualification to indicate the new products and to issue the new product certificate.

(i) On April 15, 2016, the Board of Audit and Inspection: (a) received a civil petition related to the certification of a new product of this case and transferred the civil petition to the Defendant; (b) conducted an audit from April 2016 to November 11; and (c) on January 13, 2017, the National Technical Standard Institute conducted an investigation into the employees M of the Korea Medium & Medium Development S Headquarters, and supplied to the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff, “The entire distribution supplied by the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea does not have a double floor door with the three-dimensional earthquake isolation device; (c) there is no device capable of demonstrating earthquake isolation performance; and (d) there is no V franchiseer and the erode verification, and thus, it is different from the main characteristics of the certification of the new product of this case.”

(j) Accordingly, on February 13, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the procedure of the hearing on the revocation of the certification of the new product of this case, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that is the cause of the disposition. As such, the Defendant stated the following as ① the submission of false records of commercialization, ② the submission of false materials related to industrial property rights, ③ the submission of false materials related to industrial property rights, and ③

(k) On February 23, 2017, the Defendant revoked the certification of the instant new product on the ground that it falls under Article 16-5 (1) 1 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, such as submission of a false report on the actual use of new products to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The fact that the Plaintiff submitted false materials related to industrial property rights or submitted non-effective materials in the process of certifying the new product of this case was included in the grounds for disposition in the notice of the hearing procedure of this case, but was excluded from the grounds for disposition of this case through the hearing procedure. The Defendant’s assertion as the grounds for disposition is not allowed by adding the grounds for disposition, the identity of basic factual relations of which is not recognized.

B) The reason for the instant disposition is that the Plaintiff submitted the false results of commercialization to obtain new products, and the results of commercialization should be determined on the basis of core technology on the certificate of new products. In determining the results of commercialization of the instant new products, performance is not core technology. Even if it is necessary to coincide with all of the main and subsidiary parts in determining the results of domestic commercialization, the New Product Certification Board changed the name of "B" to "B" to clarify the new technology and the scope of certification of the instant products as a result of the evaluation of new products as a result of the certification of the instant new products, excluded from the scope of certification, and submitted false results of commercialization since the overall distribution supplied by the Plaintiff to the Korean secondary development.

C) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it does not recognize the grounds for its disposition.

2) The defendant's assertion

In the process of certification of a new product, the performance of the new product of this case constitutes a core technology of the new product of this case and the Plaintiff did not withdraw its content. However, the Plaintiff submitted false data on the actual results of commercialization, such as submitting data on the sales performance of the product of this case, which does not include the performance of the new product of this case, and submitted data irrelevant to the new product of this case. As such, the Plaintiff obtained the certification of the new product of this case by fraudulent or other illegal means, which falls under Article 16-5 (1) 1 of

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff stated the core contents of the development technology, including the face-to-face performance, as follows, in the “applicant product description” attached to the application for the certification of a new product of this case.

【The core contents of the development technology in the application product description】

E. The core content of development technology - high voltage distribution base 1) - high voltage and low voltage distribution system - the process at the time of the occurrence of an accident or change of capacity, which is composed of four panels, are made into one panel, and the size of power distribution base is reduced and at the same time, the non-explosive panel - high voltage distribution base, including the non-explosive power distribution base, are installed in an earthquake-proof distribution system that connects parts with those of patent registration number G (patent registration number H), but the existing seismic power distribution system is installed in an earthquake-proof power distribution system to ensure that the earthquake-proof power distribution system can be seen as being widely used in an earthquake-proof power distribution system. This is also a new device that can be seen as being used in an earthquake-proof power distribution system that is not an earthquake-proof power distribution system, and has a new device that can be seen as being used in an earthquake-proof power distribution system, which is not an earthquake-proof power distribution system.

2) On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff respondeded to the following part of the request for submission of data on new applications for certification of new products by the Director of the National Technical Standards Institute (Evidence A No. 2).

【The part related to the performance of the Plaintiff’s response on February 9, 2015】

3) At the time of the meeting of the Evaluation Committee on New Technology Certification in 2015, 2,27, a member X (hereinafter referred to as "X member") asked the Plaintiff about whether the concept of application for new technology includes earthquake-proof and earthquake-proof technology, and the Plaintiff answers to marking separately as it includes low pressure and high-tension. AH member stated a comprehensive opinion that "the contents of the portion to which the core technology is applied need to be supplemented with clear title." AH member stated that there is discrimination with the existing product (foreign sales consideration), revision (excluding smart sales), consideration of earthquake-proof term, and AI member introduced that "the high-quality and utility of the new technology" and "the high-quality and utility of the new technology and quality of the new technology are introduced and applied to the new technology and form of "the high-quality and utility of the new technology" as a result of the use of the high-quality and loss of the new net, and thus, the existing form of "the high-quality and utility of the new technology and quality of the new technology."

4) The on-site examination report (Evidence A No. 4) prepared on March 5, 2015 on the Evaluation Committee for Certification of New Products contains the content excluding face-to-face performance as follows:

[In the field review report, the part comparing core technology]

5) On March 20, 2015, a comprehensive report on the instant comprehensive evaluation (hereinafter referred to as “the instant comprehensive report”) made on March 20, 2015, entered the core technology of the instant new product, except for the contents relating to the performance of face-to-face performance as follows. On the other hand, the statement on performance of face-to-face performance is written only as one of the following items:

[Entry of Improvement (Nuclear Technology) in the instant comprehensive evaluation report]

D. The problems of existing products and the problems of existing products on terms and conditions of improvement are four panel compositions, which account for a large number of spaces (560X2500X2550m).

○ In the event of the malfunction and maintenance of each device, it is necessary to work for a long time at the time of the malfunction and maintenance of each device, and the use of bus bus barar for the expansion of inner space due to the installation of a multi-user line for maintenance and repair inconvenience, average 5°C-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-4-4-4-4-4-3-3-4-4-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3-4-4-4-3-4-4-4-3-4-4-4-4-4-2-4

6) The Plaintiff stated in the application form for the certification of a new product of this case the following registration number of industrial property rights as stated below, and stated in the application form that the Plaintiff has four patents as the industrial property rights related to the new product of this case and as the industrial property rights related to the new product of this case, but the current status of the industrial property rights related to the applied product of this case is only three patents as indicated below, but does not contain three patents as to "K related to the performance of face-to-face (registration number L).

[Comparison of Current Status of Intellectual Property Rights Related to Application Products]

A person shall be appointed.

7) At the time of submission of the application for certification of the instant new product, the Plaintiff entered the name of the instant new product into “D”; however, on February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the name of the instant new product into “B” as a result of the meetings of the Certification Evaluation Committee of New Products and Qu Center on March 5, 2015, and the instant comprehensive evaluation report states that the reasons for changing the name of the instant new product is “to clarify the new technology of the applied product and the scope of certification.”

8) During the hearing prior to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff prepared a statement of his own/her own patent-related application documents and the right parts cited in the new product on February 23, 2017, stating that the patent of 0 inventors (E (Patent No. F) was clearly explained by the administrative agency, and that the patent of 0s of 0s of the inventors was not cited, and that the presider of the hearing prepared a statement of his/her own patent-related application documents and right parts cited in the new product on February 23, 2017

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 13, and 23, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 16-5(1)1 of the Specific Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act of the instant disposition provides that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall revoke the certification where a certified new technology or certified new product has been certified by fraud or other improper means. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition ground is limited to the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the actual results in the process of certification of a new product by fraud or other improper means. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that “the Plaintiff omitted materials related to the patent or submitted materials irrelevant to the instant new product” constitutes grounds for disposition.

Therefore, on February 13, 2017, the defendant prepared a written opinion to the effect that the hearing procedure of the cancellation of the new product of this case was conducted on February 23, 2017, stating that "the grounds for the disposition of this case are the grounds for the disposition of this case (i) the submission of false commercialization records to the plaintiff, (ii) the submission of false materials related to industrial property rights, (iii) the submission of false materials related to industrial property rights, and (iv) the submission of non-effective materials and inappropriate materials under the Patent Act," and that the presider of the hearing procedure of this case prepared a written opinion to the effect that "the application documents and rights related to another person's own patent cited in the new product are specified as certain parts through supplementary documents." After the defendant written to the plaintiff on April 3, 2017 without specifying the grounds for the disposition of this case < Amended by Act No. 16-5 (1)1 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act No. 1673, Apr. 3, 2017>

In principle, the grounds for an indivative administrative disposition must be specified in the written disposition, and the contents and scope of the grounds for the disposition should be determined through the objective meaning of the language and text. According to the above facts, among the grounds for the disposition that the defendant presented while notifying the hearing procedures, the part that falls under the above (2), (3) of the grounds for the disposition that the defendant presented while notifying the hearing procedures is stated in the written disposition of this case, and falls under Article 16-5 (1) 1 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act" is merely an indication of the grounds for the disposition, and it does not constitute the part that stated the grounds for the disposition independently. The part that submitted false or inappropriate materials under the Patent Act appears to be excluded from the grounds for final disposition due to its vindication in the hearing procedures.

Therefore, the reason for the instant disposition is limited to the part that the Plaintiff submitted a false commercialization performance and received the certification by fraud or other improper means.

2) Whether the instant disposition grounds are recognized

A) Relevant legal principles

(1) Article 16(1) of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act provides that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may certify a product with excellent performance and quality as a new product, among the products that have been completed by applying innovatively improving and improving technologies that have been developed domestically as a core technology. Article 2(2) of the Operational Guidelines for Certification of New Products (Notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2016-065, hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines of this case") provides that "commercialization" means that the stable quality new product is supplied to the market and has actual results of use and sale for the original purpose of the new product. According to Article 15(3) of the Operational Guidelines of this case provides that "this case's new technology shall be subject to the examination of the Certification Evaluation Committee for New Products for Certification of New Technology" (Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act; whether new technology is subject to the application of "new technology" and the performance description of the new product shall be included in the relevant application form of Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act.

(2) An appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition against the Defendant, who is the disposition authority claiming the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984; 83Nu492, Dec. 13, 1983). The Defendant must prove that the outcome of commercialization submitted by the Plaintiff does not apply the core technology subject to the certification of the new product of this case.

B) Specific determination

Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff submitted as a result of commercialization at the time of the application for the certification of a new product of this case, the performance of the new product of this case does not constitute a new product as a result of commercialization, and in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as follows, including the health class, the facts acknowledged earlier, the evidence acknowledged earlier, the evidence No. 11, 12, 13, 27, and 28, and the whole purport of the argument No. 3, the performance of the new product of this case cannot be deemed as being excluded from the core technology of this case and included in the subject of certification. Thus, even if the Plaintiff submitted the results of the supply of the new product that does not contain the performance of the new product of this case as a result of commercialization, it cannot be deemed as a case where the Plaintiff obtained the certification by fraudulent

(1) The Plaintiff first applied for the certification of the instant new product, and presented his/her intent to withdraw the application for the certification of the product containing the eromatic performance, by responding to the request of the Director of the National Technical Standards Institute on February 9, 2015, that “the eromatic device was installed as a whole, not a core technology, but a device installed as a eromatic device.”

At the first instance court, the secretary general of AB and Q Center, who was a member of the Committee for the Evaluation of New Products, testified to the effect that the performance of the amnesty was not a core technology, and thus withdrawn during the examination process. AD, X of AE University, AF Association, a member of the Committee for the Evaluation of New Products, who was a member of the Committee for the Evaluation of New Products, was in charge of the duties related to the certification of new products at the National Technical Standards Institute, prepared a written confirmation to the same effect that AG, a member of AF Association, who was a member of the Committee for the Evaluation of New Products Certification, was excluded from the core technology of the new product at the time of the on-site examination by the Evaluation Committee on February 27, 2015.

(2) Although the name of the instant new product was ‘D' at the time of the application for the new product, the instant comprehensive evaluation report was changed to ‘B'. As seen earlier, in light of the following: (i) X members at the meeting of the New Products Certification Evaluation Committee on February 27, 2015; (ii) there is a need to question whether X members and AH members included in the face-to-face performance in the instant new product; and (iii) to supplement the contents of the portion to which the core technology applies in a clear title; (iv) amendment of the name of the product (excluding smart), consideration at the time of writing the earthquake-proof term; and (v) the instant comprehensive evaluation report states that the reasons for the change of the name of the instant new product is stated as ‘to clarify the new technology of the applied product and the scope of certification; and (iv) the patent (registration number L) of 3'K is excluded from the grounds for the change of the name of the new product.

(3) The comprehensive evaluation report of this case is a direct standard for determining the scope of certification of a new product. The comprehensive evaluation report of this case contains the same technology as the technology of development, new technology and core contents of the technology of development, and K as the material performance.3) However, the part of the comprehensive evaluation report of this case concerning performance is completely the same as that of the material of this case in the field examination report of the evaluation committee for new product certification (Evidence A No. 4) as well as the comprehensive evaluation report of this case. The executive secretary of Q Center mentioned the contents of the new product of this case as the material of this case except that of this case in the process of preparing the new product of this case.

(4) The Defendant asserts that the performance is the core technology of the instant new product on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted the test report of the Korea Testing Laboratory stating the results of the Plaintiff’s earthquake-proof test, and submitted the test report of the performance to the evaluation committee on March 5, 2015, and submitted the test report of the performance to the evaluation committee on the field examination on March 5, 2015, and that the new technology is recognized as a product with substantial technical value and ripple effect on the performance. The minutes of the Deliberation Committee on Certification of New Products, and the result of the Evaluation Committee on Certification of New Products also includes the contents that the performance corresponds to the same kind of major new technology as the comprehensive report column of the instant comprehensive evaluation report.

However, in the process of the Evaluation Committee on Certification of New Excellent Products, the members raised questions as to whether the new Excellent Products actually existed in the process of the Evaluation Committee, and as a result of the meeting of the Evaluation Committee on Certification of New Excellent Products and on-site examination, the performance was excluded from the core technology of the new Excellent Products. However, it is reasonable to deem that the reason why the Plaintiff submitted the test report on performance or the review opinion on performance is included in the part of the new Excellent Products, and that the results were examined as a major additional technology, not the core technology of the new Excellent Products of this case (the written comprehensive evaluation of this case claimed by the Defendant is referred to as the "major performance" as well as the part on core technology, so it cannot be concluded that the performance is still included in the core technology).

(5) Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 12, Eul evidence No. 23 and the overall purport of the arguments, the question or opinion are as follows: ① at the time of the meeting of the New Product Certification Evaluation Committee on February 27, 2015, an AI member is deemed to have excellent performance and quality due to the use of a coper, and the reduction of power losses; AJ member applies the connection form newly introduced domestically with the application of a coper to the form of power distribution team applying a coper, so the size and structural utility is high; ② the improvement of new technology compared to the existing technology is recognized; ② the performance improvement and product reliability is high if a new technology is applied compared to the existing coper; ③ the evaluation results of the existing coper's evaluation of the economic feasibility and capacity in comparison with the existing coper's loss; ③ the evaluation results of the current coper's comprehensive evaluation of the capacity of use; and ③ the evaluation results of the same cop.

The main contents of the new product of this case are distribution teams that control the supply of electricity to convert it to commercial voltage of 380 V or 220V, the core contents of the new product of this case are as follows: (1) the main contents of the new product of this case are to withdraw non-use; (2) the main contents of the new product of this case are to manufacture the distribution team as one panel; (3) the application of non-use nuclear power reduction, reduction of heat generation, small-scale strength, large-scale production, and large-scale production of the new product of this case, and the comprehensive opinion of the evaluation committee of this case that the new product of this case can not be seen as the main contents of the new product of this case, and if the new product of this case can not be seen as the main contents of the new product of this case, the new product of this case can be seen as being different from the existing evaluation committee of the new product of this case, and the main contents of the new product of this case can not be seen as the performance evaluation of the new product of this case.

(6) According to the aforementioned results, at the meeting of the Evaluation Committee on February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff respondeded to “the Plaintiff separately marking because the Plaintiff had no anti-tension and high-tension performance are included.” The name of the product entered in the performance certification source submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of submitting the application for new product certification of this case is recognized as “N”. According to the certificate of confirmation (No. 3-1) written by the staff Z of the Korea Medium & Medium Development S Headquarters affiliated with the Korea Medium & Medium Development Headquarters on May 25, 2016 (No. 3-1), the power distribution team established in the Korea Medium & Medium Power Headquarters by the Plaintiff is deemed as the first fluor, and the special high voltage power distribution team installed in the said low voltage power distribution team is acknowledged as having no content about the construction of the above low pressure distribution team, construction specifications (former) and construction specifications of the above low pressure distribution team.

In regard to this, the Defendant stated that the term "in-depth" is a comprehensive concept that includes lag and dust, and that the changed name of the new product of this case is still "in-depth structure" as well as the changed name of the new product of this case. Thus, the lag performance still constitutes core technology of the new product of this case, and even if not, it does not include any earthquake-proof structure, so the submission by the Plaintiff constitutes false commercialization performance because it does not include any earthquake-proof structure. While the lag and lag's lag's lag's lag and lag's lag's lag's lag are included in lag and dust, it seems that the changed name means only "in-depth progress" of consultation except lag and dust, and the plaintiff and evaluation committee also judged that the lag's lag structure is distinguished from lag and

In light of the process of certification, such as changing the name of the new product in this case, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and its evaluation members separately from the eromatic performance and earthquake-proof structure were excluded from the core technology subject to certification of the new product in this case. ② Whether to recognize commercialization performance data pursuant to Article 15(3)2 of the operating guidelines of this case should be determined based on whether the core technology of the applied product was applied and supplied. ③ The products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea are low pressure distribution teams unrelated to the eromatic performance and products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea, and the name of the products indicated in the certificate of performance did not use any name suggesting that the eromatic performance exists in the products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea. ④ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s eromatic performance and earthquake-proof structure were applied through AA to the above products (the parts that enable the Plaintiff to resist the eromatic performance by increasing the structural strength of the earthquake-resistant power, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the new product in this case constitutes a new product supplied.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff submitted a false commercialization performance and received certification by fraudulent or other illegal means is not recognized. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Meanwhile, since the term of validity of the certification of a new product of this case from March 24, 2015 to March 23, 2018 is as seen earlier, it is apparent that the term of validity expires. However, in full view of Article 16(2) of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Operational Guidelines for the Certification and Encouragement of Purchase, etc. (Notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (Notice No. 2016-065 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy), the term of validity of the certification of a new product of this case shall be three years from the date of public announcement, and the person who intends to extend the term of validity of the certification of a new product of this case shall file an application for extension three months prior to the expiration date of the term of validity, and the evaluation institute shall examine the extension within 90 days from the date

If Gap evidence Nos. 37 and 38 collected the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff applied to the President of the National Technical Standards Institute on December 1, 2017, before 90 days prior to the expiration date of the term of validity of the new product of this case, and the President of the National Technical Standards Institute only notified that the procedure of evaluation is reserved, and did not make a decision on the plaintiff's application for extension. In the case where the cancellation of the new product of this case becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff may be extended to three years according to the application for extension. Thus, even if the term of validity of the new product of this case expires, the plaintiff has legal interest to seek the cancellation of the new product of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges are accommodated in judges;

2) The above background leading up to the change of name appears to be two main points. It is reasonable to deem that the term “ smart”, which is likely to be misunderstood, is deleted as well as that the performance is excluded from core technology.

3) 2 pages 2 of the instant comprehensive evaluation report (Evidence 6 of the Evidence A), 2.4. The explanation of the application product, 2. structure and operation principles, 6. Of new technology and core contents of development technology, 'OK' among items of high voltage and distribution, 'public use of low voltage and distribution teams', and 8.0, 8.0, 8.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.