2. The costs of litigation following an objection shall be borne by the obligor;

The debtor: Revocation of the provisional disposition order as stated in Paragraph (1) and the creditor's application for provisional disposition is dismissed.

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

(a) Creditor's patented invention;

(a) Name: Automatic cutting and receiving device in whole whole;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: November 10, 2003/ September 9, 2005/ (patent registration number 1 omitted)

3) Claims and major drawings: (a) the description of "the contents of the patented invention" is as stated in attached Form 2.

(b) The debtor's working goods;

The debtor (attached Form 1) manufactures and sells each product listed in the list of the implementation products (hereinafter referred to as “instant implementation product”).

(c) An earlier application filing (the filing of the lawsuit shall be accompanied by the evidence 11-2);

(a) Name: A conventional automatic processing device in whole in part;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: August 28, 2003/ November 26, 2003/ (patent registration number 2 omitted)

3) Claims and main drawings: as stated in [Attachment 3] “the details of the earlier application”.

2. The parties' assertion and the decision of provisional disposition under Paragraph 1 of the Disposition

A. The parties' assertion

1) Creditor's assertion

A) Since the instant patented invention contains both the same or equal technical composition of the obligee’s invention described in the Claim 1 (hereinafter “instant patented invention”), the act of the obligor’s manufacturing and selling the instant patented invention constitutes an act of infringing the obligee’s patent right as to the instant patented invention.

B) Therefore, as a preserved right, the obligee has the right to claim against the obligor the prohibition of infringement of the patent right under Article 126 of the Patent Act, and there is a need to preserve the said right, the instant provisional disposition decision should be authorized.

2) The debtor's assertion

A) Since the instant worked product lacks the “ice case” composition among the technical composition of the instant patented invention, the instant worked product cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the instant patented invention. Therefore, even if the obligor manufactures and sells the instant worked product, it cannot be deemed that the obligee’s patent right as to the instant patented invention is infringed.

B) The patented invention of this case is identical to the prior application filed earlier, and is not patentable under the provisions of the prior application (Article 36(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same). The scope of rights can not be recognized even after the patent was granted, and the patent should not be invalidated by a patent invalidation trial. Accordingly, the application for provisional disposition by the creditor based on the patent right of this case related to the patented invention of this case must be dismissed in entirety. Thus, the decision of provisional disposition of this case should be revoked and the creditor's application for provisional disposition should be dismissed.

B. Determination of provisional disposition under Paragraph (1) of this Article

On April 24, 2015, the above court dismissed the application for provisional disposition on the part concerning the implementation product of this case, etc. on the ground that the creditor filed against the debtor and the debtor and the Estoytoon corporation, as to the application for provisional disposition other than provisional disposition 2014Kahap1056.

Accordingly, the Seoul High Court filed a complaint with the creditor and tried for the case of provisional disposition 2015Ra20318. The above court accepted the above provisional disposition application partially on March 24, 2016, and rendered a provisional disposition that "if the debtor keeps each of the above products and its finished products in custody at the place where the debtor keeps them in custody, the debtor shall not manufacture, use, transfer, lease or import them, offer to sell or rent them, display or advertise them for this purpose", and "2. The debtor shall hold possession of the above products in his office, factory, warehouse, or business office and its semi-finished products (which have been equipped with the above completed structure and has yet to be completed) and shall have the execution officer entrusted by the creditor keep them in custody", and "3. The execution officer shall make a provisional disposition that "where the debtor keeps the finished products and its finished products, the purport of the provisional disposition shall be publicly announced in a proper manner at the place where the custody is held" (hereinafter referred to as "provisional disposition" in this case").

3. Judgment as to the propriety of the provisional disposition of this case

A. Determination as to whether the patented invention of this case falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case

1) Acknowledgement of the provisional disposition of this case

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment as to this part of this case’s provisional disposition’s order, the part of “4. A. Determination as to whether the executing product of this case falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case” is identical to the reasoning for the provisional disposition’s order. As such, this Court cited it in accordance with Articles 203-3(2) and 203(1)3 of the Civil Execution Rule.

○ The Seoul High Court 2015Ra20318 decided on the provisional disposition of this case 7, 14, and 19, respectively. The Seoul High Court 2015Ra20318 decided on the provisional disposition of this case.

○ The 22 pages 3, 4, and 9 of the instant provisional disposition decision of this case are as follows: “debtor Korea Factor” is as “debtor” respectively.

2) Additional determination

As seen earlier, in the technical composition of the patented invention of this case and the executing product of this case, if the pressure-saving, the pressure-saving, and the pressure-saving, which connects the person (person) to the platform, are cut down by the slope of a shooting-type absence while the pressure-saving, and then is cut down again by the slope of a shooting-type absence, the composition that is cut in the central direction (hereinafter referred to as the “other composition of this case”) would be able to take a stable discipline of the pressure-saving (e.g., minimizing the vibration generated in the process of maintaining the horizontal level of the device and operating the pressure-saving, and taking measures such as making the pressure-saving machine accurately accessible to the shooting-type absence, the composition of this case can operate properly with the composition of the other structure of this case without organizing 6 or 6 response).

However, in the actual work site, etc., there may be cases where external forces (foreign forces) that could not be malicious in terms of the other composition of the instant case may operate the device, and even in such a case, in order to provide stable guidance on the operation of the accelerator, the patented invention of this case has adopted the "Composition 6" as the technical composition in addition to the instant other composition. On the other hand, the patented invention of this case adopts the "Composition 6 Response Organization" and the "Restoration of the restoration license of this case" in addition to the instant other composition for this purpose.

However, in the case of the executing product of this case, it is consistent with the stable direction of the platform operation of the platform, but it seems that the component 6 response structure, as seen earlier, plays an equivalent role within a certain period of time (The record reveals that, in the case of the executing product of this case, there is a trace that is flicking in the direction of the pressure and vertical length to the “stong Fr,” and that there is a stokeing in contact with the stofers under the pressure-saving line on the side of the “stonger,” and it is sufficient to consider that the pressure-saving team was flick support by the “stong Shir,” and that it was being announced through the stove support of the “stong Stong” and the “stoves” (other than that, it is sufficient to see that the composition of the product of this case can be carried out within the scope of the external pressure of the composition of the patented invention of this case without the external pressure effect of the composition of the product of this case.

B. Determination on the debtor's assertion of violation of the earlier application principle

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that, in addition to the fact that “debtor Korea Factor” in the 26th page 12 of the instant provisional disposition ruling is “debtor”, it is identical to that of “4.B. Determination on the Claim for Violation of the Earlier Application System by Debtor Factor Korea” in the grounds for the instant provisional disposition ruling, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Articles 203-3(2) and 203(1)3 of the Civil Execution Rule.

C. Feasibility of the provisional disposition of this case

Ultimately, since the act of a debtor to manufacture and sell the patented invention of this case constitutes an act infringing the creditor's patent right regarding the patented invention of this case, the creditor as the preserved right has the right to claim prohibition against infringement of the patent right under Article 126 of the Patent Act against the debtor. Furthermore, it is clearly explained that the debtor has expressed his intent to continue to manufacture and sell the patented invention of this case while arguing that the patent right of this case was not infringed on by the creditor, it is also necessary to preserve.

Therefore, under the condition of providing security, the provisional disposition order that orders the debtor with the same obligation as the above in Section 2(b) should be made.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of provisional disposition of this case is legitimate, and it is decided as per the Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Han Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)