1. The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the claims, and it is not permitted to limit or expand the scope of claims pursuant to the detailed description, drawings, etc., barring any special circumstance. However, the interpretation of the scope of claims shall be understood accurately by taking into account the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention. Thus, the interpretation of the matters stated in the scope of claims shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and shall be objective and reasonable after considering the technical significance to express in the text, taking into account the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu1902, Nov. 29, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, in requesting a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the patented invention, the invention subject to confirmation shall be specific to the extent that it can be compared with the patented invention in question, and even if it is not necessary to specify the specific composition of the part corresponding to the elements of the patented invention, and if it is not necessary to determine any difference between the elements of the invention and the invention subject to adjudication, it shall be determined within 20.

2. Under the premise that the invention of this case (patent number omitted) for which the plaintiff actively sought a confirmation of the scope of right can be compared with the claim 1 (hereinafter “claim 1 invention of this case”) of the patent invention of this case (patent number omitted), which is named “the invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s case’s patent invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s invention of this case’s patent invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention

3. 그러나 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 제1항 발명의 구성 1에는 “그물의 상하면에는 제1, 2로프가 미싱기계에 의해 각각 박음질로 부착되되”라고 되어 있는바, 여기에서 “박음질”의 사전적 의미는 좁게는 ‘바느질의 하나로서 실을 곱걸어서 튼튼하게 꿰매는 것’이지만, 넓게는 ‘재봉틀로 박는 일’을 뜻한다. 그런데 이 사건 특허발명의 상세한 설명에는 이와 관련하여 ‘통상의 미싱기계는 로프가 비교적 단단하고, 로프의 두께가 있어 박음질 과정에서 파손이 초래되므로 본 발명의 그물구조를 형성하기 위해 미싱기계(130)의 일부를 용도에 맞게 설계 변경하였다’, ‘납로프(120)의 부착 또한 미싱기계(130)에 의해서 박음질하게 되는데, 이때에는 납(122)과 미싱기계(130)의 바늘이 서로 부딪히지 않도록 주의해서 납(122)을 감싸는 외피 부분만을 박음질하는 것이다’, ‘본 발명의 그물은 그물(100)의 상하면에 제1, 2로프(110a)(110b)가 미싱기계(130)에 의해서 튼튼하게 박음질되므로 유지보수비용이 절약된다’고 기재되어 있고, 도면 제6도, 제7도에는 미싱기계에 의해 로프와 그물이 서로 맞닿은 부분에 상하 일자 또는 지그재그로 연결된 형상으로 실이 꿰매어진 형태가 도시되어 있음을 알 수 있으므로, 이러한 여러 사정을 참작하면 이 사건 제1항 발명 구성 1에서의 ‘미싱기계에 의한 박음질’은 ‘미싱기계의 바늘이 로프와 그물을 상하로 관통하면서 꿰매는 방식’을 의미한다고 봄이 상당하다.

On the other hand, this is against the composition of the challenged invention as referred to in item (a) and (b) of (c) of the instant invention. The manual on the composition of the challenged invention does not contain any description as to its specific composition. However, Austria usually means, “the method of slokeing the edge of clothes” but Austria does not necessarily mean, in the form of sloke method, combines the room with its entirety sloke with its body, and it cannot be said that the part in contact with the end of the water can be combined with sloke while passing through the sloke, and thus, it can not be said that there is no specific difference between the sloke and the sloke in the form of the instant invention as well as the sloke in the form of the instant invention as identical or equivalent to the sloke in the form of the instant invention as well as in the case of the combination with the sloke in the form of the sloke in which it can be seen that there is no possibility that the sloke can be combined with the composition of the instant invention.

Thus, although the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal had taken measures such as ordering correction of the invention in question, it should be found that there was an error that led to a trial decision (No. 2010Da3081, May 20, 201). The lower court should ex officio investigate and clarify the facts when there is no explicit assertion of the parties. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the right of the patented invention and the specification of the invention in question in the scope of the scope of the right of the patent invention, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. This case is not only sufficient for this court to directly judge, but also the description and drawings of the invention in question can only be corrected in the patent trial procedure and cannot be corrected in the court below. Thus, this court's decision is to be decided directly by the Patent Tribunal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, applying Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the revocation of a trial decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 20, 201 and the bearing of litigation costs.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)