According to the reasoning of the original decision, although the claimant asserts that he has an interest in the claim of this case, he did not present the method of evidence such as sub-paragraph 9 (a business inspection certificate to non-party 1 of the head of ○○ Tax Office) and evidence Nos. 10 (a business inspection certificate to non-party 1 of the head of ○○○○ Tax Office) presented by the claimant, the claimant 1 can be recognized as a non-party to this case, not a party to this case at the time of the request of this case, and the non-party 1 can not be recognized as a qualified party to this case, and the fact that the claimant non-party 1 operates the steel repair business at his domicile. However, this fact alone cannot be viewed as a party to the claim of this case at the time of the request of this case or the decision of this case, so the first trial decision was unlawful, and the decision of this court dismissed this claim.

However, according to the evidence No. 10 No. 10 A and B adopted by the original decision, the claimant 1 was the name on the family register, which was the name on the family register, and it can be seen that the claimant 1 was the name on the family register, but the previous claimant 1 was the resident on the family register on September 6, 1963. According to the arguments of both parties, the claimant 1 used the name of the claimant 1, and the respondent was also using the name of the claimant 1 when filing a criminal complaint against the Dong for the reason of patent infringement. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the claimant 1, who was the claimant, was the claimant 1, and therefore, in this case, the claim of this case, was filed on the family register, and it is sufficient to correct the plaintiff 1 as the claimant 1, and it is unlawful to dismiss the plaintiff's claim by the person who did not reach the original decision.

In addition, "interested person" under Article 89 (2) of the Patent Act refers to a person who conducts the business of manufacturing and selling goods by making an invention of the patent, or a person who has a relation with the right to use the invention of the patent in the nature of his business, and according to Gap's evidence adopted by the original trial decision, the claimant's non-party 1 can see that he operates the same steel laboratory at his domicile, and is registered as a "refusal repair" in the case where he is subject to business inspection from the competent tax office, but the business in the real situation of the person is registered as a "refusal repair", but it is not sufficient to conclude that the person does not manufacture the steel system in relation to the repair and repair, and if there are circumstances such as that the claimant's "ship scoo-", which is the subject of the patent, is also accepted by the interested person, and it is not reasonable for the court below to have judged that it is not a party's qualification as an interested person in this case without any further deliberation.

Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu