A. Status 1) The Plaintiff was established on March 8, 199 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling heat treatment, and was a company that manufactures and sells heat treatment paths, which are facilities for producing aluminiums for vehicles, melting furnaces, and heating paths. 2) The Defendant C, from March 2005, on behalf of the Plaintiff, was on behalf of the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive certain profits from the products sold by the Plaintiff, while working as the Plaintiff’s awareness president, on behalf of the Plaintiff, he directly established and operated E, which is the same kind of business as the Plaintiff, for the purpose of designing and manufacturing for industrial use, around January 16, 2008, and retired from the Plaintiff on February 20, 2009.

3) From May 15, 200, Defendant D, as a general manager of the Plaintiff’s regular business and a general manager of the technical department, took overall control of the Plaintiff’s technical, design, production, and technical research, etc., and he retired from the Plaintiff on or around June 30, 2009 and retired from the Plaintiff to E on or around August 10, 2009 (hereinafter “Defendant C and D”), and changed the Plaintiff’s former job to E (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”).

4) Defendant B is registered as Defendant C’s wife, and is registered as E’s business name.

B. Plaintiff’s patent right acquisition 1) Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s representative director filed a patent application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as to “H” claimed by GF, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject a patent application on June 21, 2010 on the ground that “an invention described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the five claims for the scope of a patent application may easily be made by a person having ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, and the remainder of claims are excluded from the patentable claims because they did not meet the patent requirements, etc.).” The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination by modifying the patent application by eliminating paragraphs (1) through (4) of the five claims for patent application from the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination by striking the number of the patent registration number with respect to the continuous wheel equipment (hereinafter “instant patent invention”).