The case holding that since the majority of the above employee inventions reported as an employee invention before or after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure and they succeeded to the right to obtain a patent before or after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure, since all of the claims for compensation for employee inventions occurred before or after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure and they fall under the rehabilitation claim provided for in Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, since they did not report as the rehabilitation claim before the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure, and the remaining employee inventions were reported as an employee invention before or after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure, or they were reported as an employee invention after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure because they were reported as an employee invention before or after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure or registered as an employee invention after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure under Article 11 (1) of the former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006), it is reasonable to view that the remaining claims were filed after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure and the relationship between the parties after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure.

A. Of Plaintiff 1’s primary claims, the part concerning each employee’s invention as stated in attached Tables 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 18, and the part concerning each employee’s invention as stated in attached Tables 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, and 34 among Plaintiff 2’s lawsuits shall be dismissed, respectively.

B. All of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are dismissed.

C. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 2,841,622, KRW 24,313,097, and KRW 25% per annum from May 31, 2016 to February 14, 2019, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

D. The plaintiffs' remaining main claims are all dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 90% of the portion arising between Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant shall be borne by Plaintiff 1, the remainder by the Defendant, respectively, and 80% of the portion arising between Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant shall be borne by Plaintiff 2, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph (c) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

(a) The primary claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 31, 2016 to January 18, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Preliminary claim

Since the Defendant entered into a license agreement on the patent listed in the separate sheet after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures ( September 29, 2006), it is confirmed that each disposal compensation claim exceeds KRW 200,000 against the Defendant, based on Article 17 (Disposition Compensation) of the Defendant’s Employee Invention Compensation Regulations, and each disposal compensation claim exceeds KRW 200,000 against the Defendant of the Plaintiffs (the Plaintiff added the conjunctive claim in this Court).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 1 1 5,372,315 won, 157,9,133 won, and each of the above amounts shall be 5% per annum from May 31, 2016 to January 18, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

A. Details of the agreement on the transfer of assets by the relevant companies;

1) A contract was concluded on June 8, 2001 on the transfer of assets, liabilities, employees, and contractual status, etc. included in a patented invention in relation to the business of L CDs and TFT CDs to the Hyundai Digital Industry Ltd., a subsidiary company, around June 8, 2001.

2) On November 19, 2002, Lones and Hyundai Docks entered into a contract on the sale and purchase of assets (hereinafter “instant contract on the sale and purchase of assets”) on the type and intangible assets, which a non-profit corporation in China, transferred from HOE TN echlogy Groc Group, Ltd. (hereinafter “China non-d”) and Hyundai Dlass transfer from Hates to the Chinese non-resident (hereinafter “instant contract on the sale and purchase of assets”). (No. 1)

3) On November 25, 2002, after the conclusion of the instant asset sales contract, China's non-party established the name of the Defendant Hadice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Edice Co., Ltd. on September 19, 2008, and transferred all domestic rights and obligations, including the contractual status of the instant asset sales contract, to the Defendant on November 29, 2002.

4) On January 17, 2003, through a multiple-time amendment contract, the Hasssium and the Defendant maintained the content of the instant asset sales contract as it is, but entered into a final amendment contract with the content that the transaction termination date was changed to January 22, 2003 (No. 1-3).

5) As of January 22, 2003, the Defendant agreed not to accept any debt incurred prior to the instant sales contract with Hashes and Hyundai Diplomatics, regardless of whether they are related to their business.

B. Defendant’s provision on compensation for employee’s inventions (No. 8)

The Defendant’s employee’s invention compensation standard (established on February 5, 2003; hereinafter “instant employee’s invention compensation standard”) related to the instant case is as follows.

Article 3 (Succession to Rights) 1. Our employees shall succeed to and acquire all the rights to the invention and its (including the rights to obtain a patent, etc.; hereinafter referred to as “right to the invention”) that are included in the main sentence; provided that our employees shall not succeed if it is deemed necessary or value to succeed to such rights. 2. Except as otherwise provided for in paragraph 1 above, our employees shall succeed to and acquire only the shares of the inventor’s rights within the scope of each contract. 3. The time of succession to the right shall be the time of approval of the transfer report on the invention (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer report”) and the said report is submitted to the competent department after obtaining approval of the said transfer report. If an employee invention has succeeded to the right to obtain a patent, etc. under Article 3, the compensation shall be paid to the heir of the right to obtain the patent, etc. (the date of succession to the right to obtain a patent from the heir of the right to the invention) on the basis of the standards prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 13 (Compensation for Patent Application).

C. The plaintiffs' invention

1) The Plaintiffs, etc. participated in the performance of official inventions, such as those listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto (hereinafter “the entire employee inventions of this case”) while serving as researchers in the Defendant via Hadices or modern display displays (hereinafter “the entire employee inventions of this case,” and the individual inventions of this case refer to “the Claim No. 12, 13, and 16”) (Evidence No. 12, 13, and 16).

2) Specifically, the job invention in which Plaintiff 1 participated is identical to those listed in the attached Table 2-1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1’s work invention”), and the job invention in which Plaintiff 2 participated is identical to those listed in the attached Table 2-2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2’s work invention”). The Defendant filed a patent application and registered both.

(d) Type of execution of the defendant company (Evidence Nos. 3 through 10);

Since 2009, Defendant Company concluded a patent license agreement (hereinafter “instant license agreement”) with LG display display in Korea, Japan’s NEC, showers, Warsaw, Mussia, SID, SID (ESD), Taiwan’s AUO, CMO, CPT, HNNTR, and LNTS manufacturers, rather than manufacture and sale of LV and TFT-L CDs, and collected royalties (hereinafter “instant license agreement”). The patent granted by the instant license agreement includes the Plaintiffs’ inventions.

E. The defendant's rehabilitation procedure

1) The Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court (2006 Ma11), and the above court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on September 29, 2006, and thereafter, decided to terminate rehabilitation procedures on July 4, 2008 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”). < Amended by Act No. 8574, May 31, 2007; Act No. 8857, Apr. 28, 2008; Act No. 8856, Jul. 4, 2008>

2) The Plaintiffs did not report the claim for the employee’s invention compensation for the entire employee’s invention in the instant rehabilitation procedure as a rehabilitation claim.

(f) Related cases

1) On July 28, 2006, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for employee’s invention with the Suwon District Court (2006Gahap14007). On July 25, 2008, the above court dismissed the above Plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant succeeded to the obligation to compensate for employee’s invention by Hads and Hyundai Ddsclass on the ground that it did not implement the pertinent patented invention with respect to Hads and Hyundai Dclass.

On September 4, 2008, Nonparty 2 appealed to Seoul High Court (2008Na79632). However, on June 3, 2009, the above court dismissed the above appeal on the ground that even if the Defendant did not succeed to the obligation to compensate for employee’s inventions and succeeded to family affairs, the existence of the claim cannot be asserted because it was not recorded in the list of rehabilitation creditors of the rehabilitation procedure of this case, and that the Hasssssss and modern displays did not work the pertinent patented invention. The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 4, 2009.

3) On August 10, 2015, Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for claiming an employee’s invention compensation with the Seoul Central District Court (2015Gahap50620). On November 18, 2016, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing Nonparty 3’s claim on the grounds that the Defendant did not have succeeded to the employee’s invention compensation obligation pursuant to the asset sales contract of this case, even if he/she succeeded to his/her family affairs, it was difficult to view that the Defendant succeeded to the employee’s invention compensation obligation pursuant to the asset sales contract of this case, and that Nonparty 3 was exempted from the obligation due to the failure to report as a rehabilitation claim in

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the reorganization of issues;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Since the Plaintiffs’ invention succeeded after the termination date of the instant contract for the sale of assets, the Defendant bears the obligation to compensate for the employee’s invention.

2) In addition, the Plaintiffs’ claim for employee’s invention compensation is in accordance with Article 17 of the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations, and thus, it shall be deemed that the contract was concluded at the time of specific granting permission. Therefore, the above claim constitutes “a claim that cannot be reported at the time of the instant rehabilitation procedure (after the commencement)” as it is at least difficult to know the specific contents prior to the conclusion of the contract, since the above claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim. Even if the above claim is deemed a rehabilitation claim, the Plaintiffs need to supplement the report

3) Therefore, with respect to the profits earned by the Defendant from the contracts entered into after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the Plaintiffs seek to the Defendant as part of the disposal compensation (employee invention compensation) and damages for delay thereof as stipulated in Article 17 of the Employee Invention Compensation Regulations, and seek confirmation as to the existence of each disposal compensation (employee invention compensation) exceeding KRW 200,000,000 against the Defendant pursuant to Article 17 of the Employee Invention Compensation Rules.

B. The defendant's argument

For the following reasons, the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for employee's invention should be reduced to more than the amount recognized by the judgment of the first instance.

1) Claim for compensation for employee’s inventions except for the inventions in Articles 29 through 32 of the instant case: As shown in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the claim for compensation for employee’s inventions is “legal claim” arising under Article 40(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006) and arise at the time of “the succession to employee’s invention.” The claim for compensation for employee’s inventions except for the inventions in Articles 29 through 32 of the instant Act is merely about “the time of payment of compensation” in detail. Accordingly, even if the specific contents were not determined before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the claim for compensation for employee’s inventions except for the inventions in Articles 29 through 32 of the instant case constitutes “a rehabilitation claim” that had the cause of the occurrence of the claim before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and thus, the claim was not reported in the rehabilitation

2) The assertion on the claim for compensation for employee’s inventions as to Articles 30 and 32 of the instant case: The Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not have any separate agreement as to the instant Articles 30 and 32 after the employee’s invention was reported, and there was no circumstance to deem that there was an implied agreement. Rather, even if the instant employee’s invention is deemed changed to a free invention, it is reasonable to deem that the employer’s intent succeeded to the employee’s free invention at the time when the employee’s invention was reported. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for employee’s inventions as to the instant Articles 30 and 32 of the instant case constitutes the “ rehabilitation claim,” which had been kept before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and thus, the claim for compensation for employee’s inventions as to the instant Articles 30

3) The assertion on the claim for compensation for employee’s invention as to the invention of this case as to Article 29 and paragraph (31) of this case: Although the claim for compensation for employee’s invention of this case was filed by dividing it from paragraph 29 of this case, the judgment of the first instance calculated the compensation for employee’s invention by deeming the invention as a separate invention, and since the patent filed by dividing it is actually included in the original application, the invention should be deemed to be a single invention.

4) Claim on the Calculation of Work Compensation: In concluding the instant license agreement, the instant Claim Nos. 29 through 32 was not a representative patent, and thus the relevant contribution was not yet made. However, the first instance court determined that all the patents owned by the Defendant were identical to the instant license agreement, and thus, did not constitute a reasonable amount of compensation.

5) The Plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim: The instant employee’s claim for the employee’s invention in question was forfeited due to the completion of the rehabilitation procedure according to the fact that it was not reported as a rehabilitation claim; and it is not possible to supplement the report. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim does not have any benefit in confirmation.

C. Organization of issues

The main issues of the instant case are [1] Whether and when the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for employee’s inventions occurred, / [2] The scope of the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for employee’s inventions forfeited under the instant rehabilitation procedure, / [3] the computation of the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for employee’s inventions and / [4] the legal action for confirmation as to the existence of the claim for compensation for employee’s inventions

3. Determination as to whether or not the plaintiffs' claim for employee's invention compensation occurred and the time of occurrence

(a) Relevant statutes;

Article 1 of the former Invention Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8357 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that "this Act shall enter into force on the date six months have elapsed since its promulgation (the date of September 4, 2006)." Article 4 of the said Addenda provides that "the succession of the right to obtain a patent, etc. or the right to obtain a patent, etc., or the right to obtain an exclusive license, made under the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force, shall be governed by the previous provisions of the Patent Act." Therefore, where the succession of the right to obtain a patent or utility model was made before September 4, 2006, Articles 39 and 40 A of the former Patent Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Patent Act") and Article 15 of the former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 1960, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply).

【The former Patent Act

Article 39 (In-Service Inventions)

(1) If an employee, corporation, or the State or a local government (hereinafter referred to as "employer, etc.") makes an invention in connection with his/her duties, due to its nature, falls under the scope of duties of the employer, corporation, or the State or a local government (hereinafter referred to as "employee, etc.") and an employee, etc. has obtained a patent for an invention that falls under the current or past duties of the employee, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "employee invention") or who succeeds to the right to obtain a patent, the employer, etc. shall have a non-exclusive license

Article 40 (Compensation for Employee Inventions)

(1) Employees, etc. shall have the right to obtain reasonable compensation, where they have employers, etc. succeed to the right to obtain a patent or the patent right with respect to an employee invention or have established an exclusive license in accordance with a contract or employment regulations.

(2) In determining the amount of compensation referred to in paragraph (1), the amount of profits which an employer, etc. should gain by the invention, and the degree of contribution of the employer, etc. to the completion of the invention shall be taken into consideration. In such cases, matters necessary for the standards for payment of compensation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree

/ former Invention Promotion Act

Article 15 (Compensation for Employee Inventions)

(1) An employee, etc. shall have a right to obtain reasonable compensation, where the right to obtain a patent, patent, etc. for an employee invention is succeeded to the employer, etc. or the exclusive license is established in accordance with a contract or

(2) Where a contract or employment regulations provide for compensation under paragraph (1), if the compensation is deemed reasonable in consideration of the following conditions, etc., it shall be deemed reasonable compensation:

1. The current status of negotiations held between the employer, employee, etc. when the guidelines for determining the type and amount of compensation are established;

2. Status of the presentation of criteria for compensation to employees, etc., including the publication and posting of criteria for compensation set;

3. Status of hearing opinions from employees, etc. when determining the type and amount of compensation.

(3) Where a contract or employment regulations provide for compensation under paragraph (1) or cannot be deemed a legitimate compensation under paragraph (2), the amount of such compensation shall be determined in consideration of the benefits the employer, etc. would obtain by the invention and the degree of contribution of the employer, etc. to the completion of the invention.

Meanwhile, according to the former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of March 3, 2006), the following provisions are applicable to a free invention:

/ former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of March 3, 2006)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

2. The term “employee’s invention” means an invention, proposal, and creation of an employee, an officer of a corporation, or a public official under Article 39(1) of the Patent Act, Article 20 of the Utility Model Act, and Article 24 of the Design Protection Act;

3. The term “free invention” means an invention other than the employee’s inventions as referred to in subparagraph 2.

Article 11 (In-Service Inventions, etc. Deemed Free Invention)

(1) Where an employer, etc. fails to file an application with respect to an employee invention within a period prescribed by Presidential Decree after he/she succeeded to the right to such employee invention, or where he/she renounces the application in writing, the employee invention shall

(2) Notwithstanding Article 39 (1) of the Patent Act, no employer, etc. shall have a non-exclusive license for an employee’s invention deemed a free invention under paragraph (1) without the consent of the employee, etc. who made the invention.

/ former Enforcement Decree of the Invention Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19672 of September 4, 2006)

Article 5 (Period of Application for Employee’s Invention)

The term "period prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 11 (1) of the Act means four months.

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the facts not disputed between the parties, as stated in the evidence Nos. 12 and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) The inventions listed in Articles 1 through 22, 23, 25, 28, 33, and 34 of the instant case (hereinafter “the succeeded inventions prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures”) are filed and filed with the employee’s invention prior to September 29, 2006, which were the commencement date of rehabilitation procedures of the instant case and completed registration after September 29, 2006.

2) The instant Claim 32 invention was reported as an employee’s invention around April 10, 2006, which was prior to the commencement date of the instant rehabilitation procedure, but was registered on March 21, 2008, which was after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure, on December 20, 2013.

3) The instant Claim 30 invention was reported as an employee’s invention around May 12, 2006, which was prior to the commencement date of the instant rehabilitation procedure, but was filed on March 5, 2008 and registered on July 1, 2009 after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure.

4) The instant Claim Nos. 29 and 31 was reported as an employee’s invention on March 9, 2007, which was after the commencement date of the instant rehabilitation procedure.

C. Determination as to whether a claim for employee’s invention compensation has arisen

1) According to the above facts, the invention of Articles 30 and 32 of the instant case was a free invention under Article 11(1) of the former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869, Mar. 3, 2006) since the Defendant reported as an employee’s invention after reporting as an employee’s invention, and the Defendant did not file an application within four months from the filing date of the employee’s invention. Thereafter, the Defendant filed the patent application for the instant invention, which was a free invention, as seen earlier. Considering the role of the parties up to the patent application, relationship between the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the patent application, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s implied succession was made between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant when the Defendant filed

The defendant asserts that since there was no circumstance to deem that there was a new agreement or agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant after the initial succession to the above invention, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to succeed to the invention even after the alteration into the free invention at the time of the initial succession to the invention. However, in full view of the aforementioned basic facts and evidence, there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant agreed to succeed to the invention at the time of report despite the fact that the defendant was not filed at the time of the initial succession to the invention, i.e., the following circumstances that can be seen as having been changed into the free invention at the time of the first succession to the invention, and ii) if interpreted as the defendant without such circumstance, it would be likely that the provisions of Article 11 (1) of the former Invention Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of Mar. 3, 2006) would be mitigated at the time of the first succession to the invention as well as the defendant's assertion that the defendant had never agreed to succeed to the invention at any time.

Thus, the claim 30 invention of this case is deemed to be a free invention and there was an implied succession on March 5, 2008, the time of commencement of rehabilitation procedure after the commencement of rehabilitation procedure, and the claim 32 invention of this case also deemed to be a free invention, and there was an implied succession on March 21, 2008, the time of commencement of rehabilitation procedure after the commencement of rehabilitation procedure.

2) The succeeded inventions prior to the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure of this case were succeeded to before September 4, 2006. The inventions of Articles 29 through 32 of this case were succeeded to the right to obtain a patent or utility model after September 4, 2006. Thus, the inventions of this case succeeded before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure of this case pursuant to Articles 39 and 40 of the former Patent Act, and it is reasonable to view that the inventions of this case 29 through 32 of this case had the right to claim a compensation for each employee’s invention in accordance with Article 15 of the former Invention Promotion Act.

3) Meanwhile, according to Article 4 of the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations, when the defendant succeeded to the right to obtain a patent for an employee’s invention, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation to the inventor in accordance with the above criteria, and the above criteria are divided into application compensation, registration compensation, performance compensation, disposal compensation, special compensation, etc. Accordingly, the above compensation stipulated in the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations is effective to the extent that it can be seen as just compensation under an agreement between the parties concerned. Thus, the plaintiffs may claim each employee’s invention compensation in accordance with Article 4 of the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations.

D. Determination on the time when the claim for employee’s invention compensation occurred

1) The Plaintiffs did not seek an employee’s invention compensation under Articles 39 and 40 of the former Patent Act and Article 15 of the former Invention Promotion Act. Since only sought an employee’s invention compensation under Article 17 of the employee’s invention compensation regulations and week 4), the Plaintiffs are examined as to when the claim for disposition compensation under Article 17 of the employee’s invention compensation regulations arose.

2) According to Article 4 of the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations, when the Defendant succeeds to the right to obtain a patent, etc. on an employee’s invention, the Defendant shall pay compensation to the inventor in accordance with the standards set forth above. In addition, the employee’s invention compensation provision of this case sets the specific time and amount of payment in the application compensation (Article 13), registration compensation (Article 15), performance compensation (Article 16), disposal compensation (Article 17), special compensation (Article 18), etc.

Meanwhile, Articles 39 and 40 of the former Patent Act and Article 15 of the former Invention Promotion Act provide that “When an employee, etc. succeeds to the right to obtain a patent, etc., he/she shall have the right to obtain a reasonable compensation.” In full view of the aforementioned provisions of the former Patent Act, the former Invention Promotion Act, and the provisions on the employee’s invention compensation in this case, the right to claim for an employee’s invention compensation under the employee’s invention compensation provision in this case falls under “when the defendant succeeds to the right to obtain a patent, etc. for an employee’s invention” pursuant to Article 4 of the employee’s invention compensation provision in this case, and Articles 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the former Invention Promotion Act

3) Therefore, since the succeeded invention prior to the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure of this case was succeeded to the right prior to the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure of this case, it is reasonable to view that the claim for compensation for employee invention also occurred prior to the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure. Meanwhile, since the invention of this case was succeeded to the right after the commencement date of the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the claim for compensation for employee invention invention

4. Whether the plaintiffs' right to claim compensation for employee's inventions has forfeited according to the rehabilitation procedure of this case

A. Relevant statutes and relevant legal principles

According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), a custodian shall prepare a list of rehabilitation creditors, etc. and submit it to the court prior to reporting by rehabilitation creditors, etc. (Article 147); rehabilitation claims, etc. entered in the list are deemed reported pursuant to the Act (Article 151); regardless of whether the list is entered, rehabilitation creditors, etc. who intend to participate in rehabilitation procedures shall report their rehabilitation claims, etc. to the court within the reporting period set by the court (Article 148); and when the rehabilitation plan is decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan, any debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for any right recognized pursuant to the provisions of this Act (Article 251). Accordingly, upon a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan, any rehabilitation company shall be exempted from liability for all unreported rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights, except for any right recognized under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. The exemption period prescribed under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is not practically extinguished, but any obligation becomes a kind of natural obligation that still exists, and thus, cannot be forced (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da. 2014.

In addition, rehabilitation claims under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refer to any property claim arising from the cause of the occurrence of claims, such as declaration of intention, etc., prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (Article 118). Thus, even if the cause of the occurrence of claims is not specifically determined based on the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures or the maturity comes after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, it does not affect the occurrence of rehabilitation claims (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da55632, Mar. 10, 20

However, with respect to any property claim that accrues from causes arising after the rehabilitation procedures commence, which is not a public-interest claim, a rehabilitation claim or a rehabilitation security right, the act of repaying such claim, receiving the repayment of such claim or extinguishing such claim (excluding exemption) shall not be performed (excluding Article 181(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, from the time the rehabilitation procedures commence to the time when the repayment period prescribed by the rehabilitation plan expires (referring to the time the rehabilitation procedures are completed where the rehabilitation procedures are completed before it is decided to grant an authorization for the rehabilitation plan; and the time the repayment is completed

(b)specific review;

1) As examined earlier, since the claim for employee’s invention compensation for the succeeded inventions prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures occurred prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (the cause of the claim seems to have arisen prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures), all of the claims constituted rehabilitation claims stipulated under Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Meanwhile, the fact that the Plaintiffs did not report the claim for employee’s invention compensation for the entire employee’s inventions of this case in the rehabilitation procedures of this case as seen earlier, the claim for employee’s invention compensation for the succeeded inventions prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures of this case was forfeited at the time when the authorization was decided to authorize the rehabilitation procedures of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from liability under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act with respect to the above employee’s invention compensation claim, and the Plaintiffs cannot compel the Defendant to perform the claim, and

2) On the other hand, as seen earlier, since the claim for employee’s invention compensation against the inventions in the instant case occurred after the commencement date of rehabilitation procedures, it cannot be deemed as having been forfeited according to the rehabilitation procedure in the instant case, since it constitutes another claim after the commencement date under Article 181(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

5. Calculation of the amount of compensation for employee inventions;

A. Relevant legal principles

According to Article 15(1) of the Invention Promotion Act [including Article 13 of the former Invention Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8357, Apr. 11, 2007)], employees, etc. have the right to obtain a patent, etc., if they succeed to the right to patent, patent rights, etc., or establish an exclusive license in accordance with a contract or employment regulations. According to Article 15(6) of the same Act, if the amount of compensation is not considered as having contributed to the benefits the employer, etc. obtained through the employee invention, and the completion of the invention, employees, etc. are deemed not to have received reasonable compensation. Therefore, the reasonable employee invention compensation should be calculated by taking into account the benefits the employer acquired, the amount of compensation for the invention, the amount of compensation for the invention, and the contribution ratio of the Plaintiffs among the inventorss. However, the Plaintiffs sought an employee invention compensation under Article 17 of the Employee Invention Compensation Regulations, but the compensation shall be calculated within the extent that it can be deemed reasonable by the parties’ agreement.

Inasmuch as an employer’s profit means the profit gained by the employee’s invention itself, it does not mean the profit earned by the employee’s invention, and it does not mean the profit earned by the accounting, such as the remaining profit after the settlement of income and expenses, if an employee’s profit exists regardless of the outcome of settlement of income and expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da75178, Jul. 28, 201,

Meanwhile, if an employer obtains royalty from a third party by granting a license only to a third party, the royalty income itself is an exclusive benefit from an employee’s invention. Therefore, unlike the case of self-working taking into account the sales from an employee’s invention and the contribution rate to exclusive rights, the royalty income itself should be regarded as the profit earned by the employer, etc., unlike the case of self-working.

In the end, if an employer obtains profits from using an employee’s invention to another company, the employee’s invention compensation should be based on the “(for example, profits that the employer, etc. should gain according to the amount of technical fees) 】 (for instance, the degree of contribution of the inventor) 】 (for the inventor’s contribution rate),” and should be calculated.

(b) Calculation Criteria:

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the whole arguments as to Gap evidence 3-1 through 10, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's patent right is gaining considerable profits from the patent right, and each employee's invention listed in the attached table 29 through 32 is included in a contract related thereto. As long as the defendant does not submit all the data related thereto, the amount of compensation for employee's invention shall be calculated in the following calculation formula centering on the ratio of the defendant's total profits from the patent right to the patent right owned by the defendant, and the statements stated in the attached table 1-1 to 10 are not believed:

Compensation for employee's inventions included in the main sentence = ① the defendant's total profits from royalties ¡¿ (2) The ratio of the relevant employee's inventions compared to the whole technology ¡¿ (3) the degree of contribution of the inventor x (4) the relevant plaintiff's contribution ratio

(c) Specific calculation of compensation;

1) The Defendant’s royalty profits, total number of patent rights, and the number of the employee’s inventions that were not forfeited by the Plaintiffs’ rehabilitation procedures in the instant case

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 3-2 through No. 10, the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① the Defendant’s royalties, ② the total number of patent rights, ③ the number of employee’s inventions which were not forfeited through the instant rehabilitation procedure is as follows.

However, in the case of a divisional application with respect to the total number of patent rights, it cannot be deemed that there exists a substantial difference between the original application and the divisional application, and thus, separate calculation is not made in the case of a divisional application. In addition, as to the number of employee inventions which were not forfeited by the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the instant Claim 31 invention falls under the divisional application of the instant Claim 29 invention, and

(ii) the level of contribution of the inventor (employee);

In light of the fact that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 appear to have completed the patented invention based on the Defendant’s accumulated technology and support, it is reasonable to view that the inventor’s contribution to the patented invention is 5% within the generally accepted limit, in light of the fact that even according to Article 17 of the Employee’s Invention Compensation Regulations, the amount equivalent to 5% of the royalty revenue is regarded as disposal compensation, etc.

3) The Plaintiff’s contribution rate among the inventorss

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 12-31, 32, and 13 of the evidence No. 12-2, the plaintiffs reported the invention Nos. 29-32 of this case as an employee invention and stated the contribution rate among the joint inventors in the case of a joint invention. The defendant, including this, seems to have accepted the above report after approval. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of contribution of the plaintiffs among the joint inventors is the contribution rate stated at the time of report (the defendant does not expressly

4) Calculation of the plaintiffs' specific employee invention compensation

According to the above determination, if the defendant calculates the employee’s invention compensation that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 within the scope of the claim period, the employee’s invention compensation for the plaintiff 1 is 2,841,622 won as specified in the following table, and the employee’s invention compensation for the plaintiff 2 is 24,313,097 won.

1) Table contained in the main sentence [1] 1] x 2. 5 x 1. 2. x 30 x 1. 5 x 2. 8 x 1.0 x 30 x 1.05 x 47 x 940 x 1/45 x 00 x 1/45 x 05 x 05 x 05 x 011 3,736, 495, 974 x 1/405 x 05 x 07 x 1,480 (30), 12,636, 95, 974 x x 05 x 05 x 146 x 945 x 05 x 205)

(i) Table contained in the main sentence [2] 3: 5 x 2. 8 x 15 x 2. 3 x 40 x 1. 8 x 40 x 5 x 30 x 15 x 29 x 45 x 1/40 x 1/45 x 0 x 1/45 x 0. 01 3,736, 495, 9744 x 0. 045 x 0. 045 x 0. 05 x 07 x 1/645 x 045 x 06 x 1,480 (29, 306), 136, 495, 974 x 1/405)

D. Judgment: Judgment on the primary claim

Therefore, among the plaintiff 1's primary claims, the part concerning the invention of Articles 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 18, and 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, and 34 among the plaintiff 1's primary claims, the part concerning the invention of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, and 34 of this case's primary claims are forfeited through the rehabilitation procedure, so there is no interest in the lawsuit. The defendant does not have an obligation to pay the plaintiff 1 the compensation for employee's invention of Articles 30, 32, 2841, 622, and 297 of this case's invention of this case to the date on which the plaintiff 1's primary claim is served with the copy of the court of this case.

6. Determination on the grounds for a preliminary claim: Whether a lawsuit seeking confirmation on a claim for employee's invention compensation is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Even if the employee’s invention compensation claim of this case constitutes a rehabilitation claim that needs to be reported in the rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiffs were difficult to expect that the Defendant would obtain profits by concluding a contract with a third party after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. Therefore, there were circumstances under which the Defendant could not expect that the Defendant would participate in the rehabilitation procedure

2) Therefore, Article 152(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to Article 152(1) of the same Act, and the Plaintiffs shall be allowed to further supplement the report on the employee’s invention compensation claim succeeded to the employer

3) If so, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the Plaintiffs’ claim for employee’s invention compensation, which is a rehabilitation claim, in order to supplement the report on the rehabilitation claim.

B. Specific determination

1) According to the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, when it is decided to grant authorization for a rehabilitation plan, the rights of rehabilitation creditors, rehabilitation secured creditors, shareholders, and equity right holders are altered according to the rehabilitation plan (Article 252(1)). Except for the rights recognized under the rehabilitation plan or the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the debtor is exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights (Article 251). In addition, in order to raise an objection to the validity of the change of rights under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, an immediate appeal is filed against the authorization decision (Article 247(1)), and if a person is recognized as a right higher than the existing rehabilitation claim (Article 170(2)), filing a separate lawsuit seeking the implementation or confirmation of the rehabilitation claim is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10310, May 26, 2011).

An application for a judgment in claim allowance proceedings shall be filed within one month from the last day of the period for claim inspection or from the special inspection date (Article 170(2)), and any person who is dissatisfied with the judgment in claim allowance proceedings may file a lawsuit of objection within one month from the date on which he/she is served with the written decision (Article 171(1)). In cases where a lawsuit of objection against the judgment in claim allowance proceedings is not filed within the period under the provisions of Article 171(1) or is rejected, the judgment shall have the same effect as the final judgment against all rehabilitation creditors, rehabilitation secured creditors, shareholders and equity right holders (Article 176(2)

2) On the other hand, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the plaintiffs' claim for employee's invention compensation is seeking confirmation as rehabilitation claims. As seen in the above legal principles, it should go through rehabilitation procedures, such as rehabilitation claim inspection judgment, and filing a separate lawsuit seeking confirmation as rehabilitation claims is unlawful.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff 1's primary claims, the part concerning the invention of Articles 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 18, the part concerning the plaintiff 2's primary claims, the part concerning the invention of Articles 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, and 34 of the plaintiff 2's primary claims, and the part concerning the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are all unlawful, and each of them is dismissed, and the remaining claims except the part which has no interest in the plaintiffs' lawsuit shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance, including the claims added in this court as above.

[Attachment 1] The entire list of inventions: omitted

[Attachment 2-1] List of Plaintiffs 1-Related Inventions: Omitted

[Attachment 2-2] List of Plaintiffs 2-Related Inventions: Omitted

Judges Kim Gung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The Plaintiffs’ petition for the amendment of the purport and cause of the incidental appeal filed on June 14, 2018 and the incidental appeal filed on June 25, 2018.

2) Each of the inventions listed in the separate sheet No. 1 includes part of the inventions other than the plaintiffs’ invention, but since both the judgment of the court of the first instance and the preparatory documents of the original and the defendant are added to the invention according to the sequences listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the invention will be added in the same manner as in the instant case for convenience.

(3) Although Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were included in the joint Plaintiff in the first instance trial, Nonparty 1 was rendered a decision of dismissal in full, and Nonparty 2 did not file an appeal after receiving the entire dismissal decision.

Note 4) On September 19, 2017, the first instance court’s protocol of pleading as of September 19, 2017, and 1 through 8 pages of briefs as of April 7, 2017