[2] The case holding that, by interpreting the term "waste livestock input means", which is the functional expression as stated in paragraph (1) of the claim for utility model registration within the registered device, the registered device and the device's device's device's device's device's device's device's specifications and action effects are different in composition and action effects, it cannot be seen as identical or equivalent to the registered device's device's registered device's device's claim

1. In a case where the scope of a right to a registered utility model is determined by the descriptions of the claims stated in the specification attached to the application form, and where the technical scope is apparent only with the descriptions of the claims, it cannot, in principle, be interpreted by other descriptions in the specification. However, it is possible to limit the scope of a right to the registered utility model by taking into account the contents of the application form and the different descriptions in the specification, and the legal stability of the applicant’s intent and third parties, in a case where it is clearly unreasonable to interpret the claims as they are not supported by the detailed descriptions of the device, such as where some of the interpreted claims are interpreted as included in the claims, in light of other descriptions in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu2856, Jul. 11, 2003; 2007Hu21866, Oct. 23, 2008).

2. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, paragraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as “paragraph 1) of this case’s registered device (registration number No. 203183) (hereinafter referred to as “this case’s device”; the remaining claims are limited to waste livestock dumping methods (40) which put the waste livestock into the steam 10 (10) box; the term “waste livestock dumping methods (40)” itself as functional expression; thus, the detailed description and drawings of the device should be interpreted to have taken into account the detailed description of the device and the direction of the removal (40) and the transport method (40) of the waste 4 (140) method (hereinafter referred to as “waste 40) method to move to the steam 40) method (4) method (40) method (40) method (40) method (hereinafter referred to as “waste 4) method (40) method (hereinafter referred to as the “waste 40 method”) and the transport method (414) method (40) method (40) method) method (this method) method shall be removed to the air 42) method (4) method (4) method.

Therefore, the term "waste livestock input method (40)" in paragraph (1) of this case is separately equipped with the "transport table (47)", which is installed on the "transport presses (41)" and only the "transport table (47)" is put into the steam drum (10), so it can perform the function of the transportation means of moving waste livestock to the steam drum (10). However, the "private dyp" in the appeal subject to confirmation is a structure combined with the cover of the steam dyp and connected to the steam dyp, and thus it cannot perform this function. Thus, the two devices are different from the composition and operation effect without examining the remaining elements. Accordingly, the two devices cannot be deemed identical or equal due to such difference, the invention subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of the right to the device of this case, and further are not subject to paragraph (1) of this case, and is not subject to the scope of the right to the device of this case, which naturally refers to paragraph (1) of this case.

3. Nevertheless, the court below held that the "embrising livestock inputs inside the steam drum (10)" of the device of Paragraph 1 of this case (the "open 14) includes any limitation on the claims, and thus the price of the body value of the body value as well as the compositions connected to the steam drum, such as the design subject to confirmation, falls under the scope of the right to the device of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this case. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of the right to the device, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)