The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. As to the assertion that there is a ground for retrial following the final and conclusive decision of a trial for correction, the decision to correct the specification or drawings (hereinafter “specification, etc.”) of the patent invention after the closure of pleadings at the trial court to revoke the trial for revocation of the trial for invalidation of the patent is not a ground for retrial as prescribed in Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu2522, Jan. 22, 2020). Thus, even if the trial decision of the court below becomes final and conclusive after the closure of pleadings at the trial court, it cannot be asserted as the ground for appeal, and even if the trial decision of the court below becomes final and conclusive after the correction becomes final and conclusive, the decision of the court below on the ground of appeal No. 200 (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu2055, Nov. 26, 2020; 2000Da10810, Nov. 1, 2012).

This part of the argument is not acceptable.

2. As to the assertion regarding the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the claims and the violation of the principle of pleading, etc. of the claims in the instant Claims Nos. 4, 10, 20, and 23, the lower court divided the trags of the instant Claims into at least three same sections, respectively, and at least two of the same sections as above.