Chicago-si

Park Jong-AA

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

Kimpo-si

Representative Director fixed BB

2. Class B:

Kimpo-si

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Lee In-bok

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On June 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) manufactured the Plaintiff and Defendant fixed ② this gold type, and made food storage containers and lids for the said food storage container (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “products of this case”); (b) Defendant Company ① ① (i) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ②”) is in charge of the sale of the said food storage container; (c) Defendant ① is in charge of the sale of the instant home shopping in the said container; (d) Defendant ① is in charge of the payment of a certain amount for each number of products sold in the home shopping; (e) Defendant Company ② is divided into the Plaintiff and Defendant fixed-value B; and (e) the remainder sales except the Home shopping are divided into the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s fixed-value B; and (e) the agreement was made to make the remainder sales at their respective profits (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”).

B. Upon completion of the design of the instant product, the Defendants filed an application for registration of the design of a food storage container among the instant product on September 4, 2012, and subsequently filed an application for registration of the design of the lid design on December 5, 2012, and received a decision to register a DNA human rights as indicated in attached Table 2, on March 21, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff and Defendant Party B, pursuant to the instant agreement, produced a gold punishment and produced the instant product. Defendant B, one, sold the instant product through Home shopping, but the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant over the settlement of accounts was suspended on June 10, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 6 and 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff, as the creator of the product design of this case, had the right to obtain design registration, the Plaintiff transferred the above right to the Defendants under the premise that the agreement was maintained between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the Defendants were entitled to obtain design registration as stated in the separate sheet in its name. However, as the agreement of this case was terminated due to the discontinuance of transaction around June 10, 2013, the term “a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the premise of maintaining the agreement of this case” was terminated. Accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to perform the procedure for the registration of transfer as to the design of this case as stated in the separate sheet.

B. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants are the creator of the product design of this case, and the Plaintiff only participated in the creation of 3D drawings for the production of the product of this case, and it cannot be said that the design of this case was not created. Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff did not hold the right to receive a record, such as the design of this case from the beginning of the year, it cannot be claimed for the return of the product of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the above right to the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine who is the creator of the instant product design.

Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 15 and the testimony and arguments of witness leapCC, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's director and leCC, Eul, Eul, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, and Eul, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, designed a new food storage container to supplement the short points of the air conditioners sold in the city, and the design of the product of this case was claimed together. The leapCC prepared the 2D drawings of this case, and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, and the defendant Eul Eul, the plaintiff Eul created the product of this case jointly.

Furthermore, in cases where two or more persons jointly create a design, the right to obtain design registration is jointly owned (Article 3(2) of the Design Protection Act); and there is no provision on how to determine the share of the above joint-ownership under the Design Protection Act; however, since the right to obtain design registration is also a property right, the provisions on joint-ownership of the Civil Act may apply mutatis mutandis to the extent that does not go against the nature of the right to obtain design registration (see Article 278 of the Civil Act). Therefore, if there is a separate agreement on share between the joint owners of the right to obtain design registration, such agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis, and if there is no agreement, the share ratio shall be presumed to be equal in accordance with Article 26

Thus, the plaintiff and defendant Eul-B shared the right to obtain design registration of the product of this case 1/2 each, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Therefore, on the premise that the Plaintiff is a sole creator of the product design of this case, the claim of this case seeking a transfer registration procedure against the Defendants as to each of the design rights listed in the separate sheet cannot be accepted.

C. However, the claim of this case includes a claim for transfer registration concerning the Plaintiff’s co-ownership among the design rights listed in the separate sheet, and the claim cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

According to the facts found above, it is reasonable to view that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants entered into between the plaintiff and the agreement of this case constitutes a kind of association agreement, which is a partnership agreement with the contents of joint production and sale of the product of this case. The right to obtain design registration for the design of this case is a partnership property under the agreement of the same business, and the claim for distribution of residual property following the termination of partnership relationship is a separate claim, and the plaintiff, a partner, cannot directly seek the return of the agreement against the defendants in the status of an individual who deviates from partnership relations. Thus, the plaintiff'

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-jin

Judges Yoon Sung-sik