직무발명보상금 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 289,229,487 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 3, 2014 to July 15, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff entered the pante Track Co., Ltd. on February 18, 2002, and thereafter entered the pante Track Co., Ltd., Samp&C Co., Ltd., SampPPS Co., Ltd., and Samp Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant (the previous title construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant and Samp Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant and Samp Construction Co., Ltd.)
2) The Defendant is a corporation that is engaged in civil engineering and construction works.
B. Of the Defendant’s provision on the Defendant’s employee’s invention compensation regulations, the main provisions pertaining to the instant case [Attachment 1] of the Defendant’s provision on the Defendant’s employee’s invention compensation (hereinafter “instant provision on the Defendant’s employee’s invention compensation”).
C. The Plaintiff’s employee’s invention, while working for the Defendants Company, completed the employee’s invention indicated in the employee’s invention list (attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant employee’s invention”); and the Defendant succeeded to the employee’s invention by attaching the sequence.
The royalties that the Defendant received by the Defendant granted to another company or company the non-exclusive license of the employee invention in the instant case Nos. 10, 13 (hereinafter “instant B & C”) or the employee invention in the instant case Nos. 16 and 35 (hereinafter “instant D D”) are as shown in [Attachment 3] technology royalties details (hereinafter “the royalties details”).
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 44 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the fact inquiry about the case at the same time in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.
2. Determination on applications and claims for registration compensation
A. The part of recognition completed the instant employee invention while serving in the Defendants company, and the Defendant’s succession to the invention is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant objection against the Plaintiff.