채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소
1. The Daejeon District Court 2019 Preliminary 502 (No. 2019) shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment;
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
1. In fact, the Plaintiff is a company aimed at manufacturing and wholesale and retailing fire-fighting appliances, and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”) is also a company engaged in manufacturing and selling the same kind of products.
The debtor filed an application for provisional injunction against infringement of patent rights with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kahap81517 with the Seoul Central District Court Order 2016Kahap81517, claiming that the products manufactured and sold by the plaintiff against the plaintiff infringed the patented invention of this case based on the registration number F of the "E" patent (hereinafter "the patented invention of this case") and executed the provisional injunction on April 13, 2017 (hereinafter "the provisional injunction decision of this case").
On April 30, 2018, the debtor filed an application for commencement of simplified rehabilitation procedures with Daejeon District Court 2018 Gohap1013, and this court rendered a simplified decision on May 17, 2018, and the defendant became a legal administrator.
On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a report on rehabilitation claim regarding “the amount of KRW 50 million, which was part of the obligor’s illegal and unfair provisional attachment execution.” However, the Defendant raised an objection thereto. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the final claim inspection judgment with this court 2019da502 on the ground that the rehabilitation claim against the obligor is KRW 50 million.
On May 14, 2019, the court of the final inspection judgment decided that the plaintiff's rehabilitation claim does not exist (hereinafter "the final inspection judgment of this case").
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination on the claim
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that "the plaintiff is prohibited from manufacturing and selling the products due to the debtor's illegal and unfair execution of the provisional disposition of this case, the value of which is 58,564,782 won and the costs of lawsuit against the debtor arising from patent disputes against the debtor against illegal and unfair provisional disposition are 20 million won.