[2] In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a trial decision, whether the court can recognize the widely known and used technique through the materials indicated in the records, such as evidence, by free evaluation of evidence (affirmative), and whether the reference materials submitted after the closing of argument are included in the “materials indicated in the records, such as evidence” (negative)

[3] Where the court exceptionally recognizes the obligation to resume the pleading, and in such a case, whether the same applies to the absence of a separate application for the resumption of the pleading only when the party submitted a document and data stating that the party should submit additional arguments and certifications (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a certain widely used art is not generally known to the extent that it can be seen as a publicly known or obvious fact in a lawsuit, the widely used art requires certification in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the trial decision. In such a case, the court may recognize the widely used art through the materials indicated in the record, such as evidence, by free evaluation of evidence. However, even the reference materials submitted after the closing of argument cannot be deemed as included in the “materials indicated in the record, such as evidence.”

[3] In principle, where a party has filed an application for resumption of oral argument to submit arguments and evidence after the closing of oral argument, the issue of whether to accept the application for resumption of oral argument belongs to the court’s discretion. However, as the party who filed the application for resumption of oral argument failed to properly obtain the opportunity to submit arguments and evidence due to the reasons for which it is difficult to assume his responsibility before the closing of oral argument, and the subject matter of such assertion and certification constitutes an infinite fact-finding fact that can determine the outcome of the judgment, the court has a duty to resume oral argument and continue trial in a case where the party’s decision against the party without granting the opportunity to submit arguments and evidence is contrary to procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act. Furthermore, if the party submitted a document and materials stating the purport that he/she should submit additional arguments and evidence after the closing of oral argument, it may be prejudicial to the application for resumption of oral argument to request the resumption of oral argument so that he/she can submit the above arguments

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to the completion of the device

A device eligible for a utility model registration shall be completed. The term "completion" of the device means a device that is specific and objective to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the device pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") can obtain technical effects for the purpose by repeating the device. In addition, the determination as to whether the device has been completed should be based on the level of technology at the time of the application, taking into account the purpose, composition, effect, etc. of the device described in the specification of the application, as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu2488, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.).

The lower court determined that the first reinforcement board (which means 612,614; hereinafter the same shall apply to other claims) (which shall be 612,614; hereinafter the same shall apply) corresponds to the first reinforcement board (which shall refer to the drawings code indicated in the specification of the instant petition for registration; hereinafter the same shall apply) via the medium of the first basic board (51,513) (which shall refer to the drawings code; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the first reinforcement board (612,614) and first-class reinforcement (which shall be 814) and first-class reinforcement (which shall be 400) and the second-class reinforcement (which shall be 612,614) of the instant petition for registration (registration number omitted; hereinafter the same shall also apply to the other claims) may not be deemed to have been connected to the instant petition for registration, and thus, the lower court also determined that the instant petition for reinforcement or reinforcement of the structure can not be deemed to have been combined with the industrial structure of the instant Claim 1614 through 40160.7).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the utility model registration is completed or not.

B. Regarding inventive step

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the instant devices of paragraphs 7 through 10, and 14 through 18 of this case include the elements of the composition that combines the government-type reinforcements of different types (i.e., e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e.

As such, the first-class reinforcement of the instant Claim Nos. 7 through 10, and the first-class reinforcement of the instant Claim Nos. 14 through 18 is common only in that it is included in the fixeding of No. 10 and the interior of the lecture room, and it is different from the basic function and structure. Thus, even if an ordinary engineer is a technician, it cannot be seen that the device can be easily derived from the technical content launched in No. 10.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) Meanwhile, the record reveals that the Plaintiff submitted 1 to 7 documents and reference materials attached thereto, referring to the following: (a) on December 13, 201, 201, the Plaintiff, after the closing of argument, that “an official reinforcement material is inserted in the lecture team report; and (b) a single official reinforcement material is incorporated by inserting another official reinforcement material; and (c) a single official reinforcement material is incorporated by inserting it out (hereinafter “instant constituent 1”) constitutes widely known art.

However, in a case where a widely known art is not generally known to the extent that it can be seen as a publicly known or obvious fact in a lawsuit, the widely known art requires certification in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the trial decision, and at this time, the court may recognize the widely known art through evidence and other records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3052, May 29, 2008). However, it cannot be deemed that the reference materials submitted after the closing of argument are included in “materials indicated in the records, such as evidence.” Therefore, the court below did not recognize the composition 1 of this case as widely known art without considering the contents of reference materials 1 through 7 in accordance with the above legal principles, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff.

C. As to the necessity for a resumption of the pleading

(1) In principle, the issue of whether to accept an application for resumption of oral proceedings when a party filed an application for resumption of oral proceedings to submit arguments and evidence after the closing of oral arguments is subject to the court’s discretion. However, as in cases where the party who filed the application for resumption of oral proceedings failed to have an opportunity to submit arguments and evidence due to the reasons for which it is difficult to assume his/her responsibility before the closing of oral arguments, and where the subject matter of such assertion and certification constitutes an objective fact requiring proof that can determine the outcome of the judgment, the court has a duty to resume oral proceedings and continue deliberation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da20532, Oct. 28, 2010; 201Du7991, Mar. 14, 2013; 2011Du7991, Mar. 14, 2013; 2015Du15015, supra, the party cannot be deemed to have submitted the said application for resumption of oral proceedings separately from the party.

(2) In the composition of the instant Claims 7 and 14, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of each of the instant devices is not denied on the grounds that “the first reinforcement board abutted on the first basic board and inserted on the Gangnam Group 1 and the second-class reinforcement of the first-class reinforcement and the second-class reinforcements inserted on the steel Team for the first-class reinforcement and the second-class reinforcements inserted on the steel Team for the first-class reinforcement” (hereinafter “instant composition 2”) was not commenced anywhere in comparison with the lower judgment, and that the evidence No. 10 does not appear in the same structure as the instant composition No. 1, which forms one part of the instant composition 2, on the premise that the nonobviousness of each of the instant devices does not appear. On this premise, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of both the instant Claims 8 through 10, which are subordinate claims to the instant Claim 7 and the instant Claim 15 through 18, which are subordinate claims to the instant Claim 14.

(3) However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

First, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following circumstances are revealed. In other words, since the Plaintiff, on April 11, 1975, published Japan Utility Model Gazette (Disclosure Number 2), “an open space (No. 1) was inserted into the lecture hall (No. 3)” and the composition of an open space (No. 1) was asserted through preparatory documents dated October 17, 201 to the effect that it is widely known technology, and the above preparatory documents were stated on the date for pleading 1 (No. 1, 201, no. 6, no. 1, no. 2, and no. 1, no. 2, no. 1, no. 1, no. 2, no. 2, no. 1, no. 2, no. 1, no. 2, no. 1, no. 2, no. 201, no. 1, no. 2, no. 1, and no. 2, no. 2, no. 1, no.

In light of the above circumstances as acknowledged by the court below, since the composition of the device of paragraphs (7) through (10), (14) through (18) of this case serves as a major factor in determining the inventive step of each of the above devices, the court below should have deliberated on whether the nonobviousness of each of the above devices is denied on the basis of the documents for reference as of December 13, 201 and the documents for reference as of December 13, 201, and the documents for reference as of December 13, 201, which were submitted and examined before the closing of the argument, and should have deliberated on whether the non-obviousness of the above devices is denied. Also, the above reference can be prejudicial to the prior application for the purport that the plaintiff submitted the reference documents only and submitted the reference materials separately, and it cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that the plaintiff submitted the new statement in supplement of the existing widely known art claim and submitted the reference materials to submit them as evidence.

Nevertheless, the lower court immediately determined that the nonobviousness of the instant devices under paragraphs (7) through (10), (14) through (18) of this case was not denied by the comparative design 1 through 7 as indicated in the lower judgment. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the necessity of resumption of pleadings, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The lower court determined to the effect that the instant Claim Nos. 4, 5, and 6 could easily be derived from each of the comparative ideas 1, 3, and that each of the instant devices is identical with, or could easily be derived from, the corresponding compositions 1, 3, and 4, and that each of the devices of the instant Claim Nos. 13 is identical, or could easily be derived from, the comparative device Nos. 1, 3, and 5; and that each of the devices of the instant Claim Nos. 13 is identical, or could be easily derived from, the corresponding compositions 1, 3, and 5, respectively; and that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 3 through 6, 13, 4, and 5 is denied by the comparative device No. 1,

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of a registered utility model

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)