A. The part of the claim for confirmation of the absence of the inventor status as to each patent application listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 5 and each patent application listed in the separate sheet No. 6 shall be dismissed among the instant counterclaim of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff Co., Ltd.).

B. It is confirmed that the contract between the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the cocopi and all outcomes generated in the course of research and development agreed in the contract dated May 16, 2005 is invalid.

C. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation cost, 2/3 is borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and 1/3 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) shall be revoked. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff is a co-owner of the patent right listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and that the Plaintiff can independently use the patent, and they shall not produce, use, transfer, lease, import, or subscribe for transfer or lease of the goods listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and shall not directly or through a third party conduct research and development on the use of the products listed in the separate sheet No. 2, as pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical products for people, animals, or plants listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn both the applicant and inventor related to the patent application No. 3 and each patent application No. 4 related to each patent application No. 4 and the claim for each addition of the inventor).

2. The defendants

The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. The Plaintiff confirms that each patent right listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 5 and each patent application listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 is not an inventor. The contract between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff on the cocomelts agreed in the previous agreement on May 16, 2005 and all outcomes generated in the course of research and development is invalid (the Defendant Company sought confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim distribution of profits by profit distribution contract, and subsequently, changed the lawsuit in the first instance trial after seeking confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim distribution of profits by profit distribution contract on May 16, 2005).

A. Status of the parties

1) The defendant company was established with the trade name "Korea Micro-Organism Research Institute Co., Ltd." around July 1972, and was changed to the trade name as of September 3, 2004. The defendant has served as the representative director of the defendant company from March 21, 2001 to March 21, 2001.

2) The Plaintiff, a major of the toxicology, was master’s degree at the Seoul National University Health Graduate School in 1980, and the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree was given in the Gi-Alginate University in 1984, “N-Algin influence on payment and cadmium toxicity.” From 1988, the Plaintiff, working for the Gidong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nisung”), who started contact with Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the judgment of the Supreme Court), of the Netherlands, was in charge of contact with Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “Magdong Pharmaceutical”) during 200 years from March 21, 201 to March 21, 2004, respectively. The Plaintiff was working for the Defendant Company as a director from March 21, 2001 to March 21, 2004.

(b) Agreement on the development of air conditioners;

On February 25, 2001, upon the introduction of the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company entered into the “Agreement on the Development of Airboooo using a non-sub compound” (hereinafter “instant development agreement”). The main content of the agreement is that the Defendant Company bears research funds necessary for the instant development agreement, and all the discoverys and patented inventions arising in the said research and development process belong to the assets of the Defendant Company in principle. Moreover, the Plaintiff was designated as a research supervisor of the Defendant Company under the instant development agreement.

C. Application and registration of the patent of this case

1) On April 28, 2001, based on the research results of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendants filed a patent application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as a joint inventor, and with the Plaintiff and the Defendants as joint applicants, for the invention relating to “hythomanium, dynaium, dynaium, or mix thereof,” the Plaintiff and the Defendants as joint applicants (hereinafter “first application”).

2) On April 25, 2002, based on the research results of Nonparty 1’s additional research, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were jointly inventors with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as joint inventors; on the basis of the first application, the Plaintiff and the Defendants as joint applicants, they jointly file a patent application (hereinafter “second application”); and thereafter, the first application was deemed voluntarily withdrawn pursuant to Article 56(1) of the Patent Act; and the second application was registered as patent rights listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant patent”) around November 3, 2004.

D. Conclusion of joint ownership contracts and profit distribution contracts

1) On May 16, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a contract for joint ownership of patents, etc. (hereinafter “instant joint ownership contract”) in order to clarify the relationship between rights and obligations with respect to the instant outcomes generated in the course of the research and development of Metamera cancer, including the instant patent (hereinafter “instant outcomes”), and the main contents of the instant joint ownership contract are as shown in attached Table 7. The instant joint ownership contract stipulates that the instant outcomes are based on the research and development of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, although the Defendant’s representative director of the Defendant Company considered the portion contributed to the instant outcomes as the Defendant Company’s representative director, the Defendant did not directly perform any research related to the aviation cancer.

2) Upon entering into the instant sharing contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract on the timing and method of allocating profits under Article 2(2) of the Sharing Contract (hereinafter “instant benefit distribution contract”), and the content thereof are as shown in attached Form 8.

(e) application for and registration of subsequent patents;

An international patent application (patent number 1 omitted) pertaining to the patent of this case is each patent right listed in the separate sheet No. 5, registered among individual patent applications entered into each designated state, and the patent application is each patent application listed in the separate sheet No. 6. As a subsequent patent pertaining to the patent of this case, an international patent application (patent number 2 omitted) pertaining to “non-explosion and reproductive cancer for treatment of infertility and its urine, batium, and pharmaceutical products containing its batium and its batium,” which falls under the outcomes of this case, is listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and an individual patent application for which part of the designated state enters each designated state is described in the separate sheet No. 4.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1-2, Gap evidence 6-4, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff conducted research on aviation cancer using the Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea.

① The Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the inventor status of the instant patent, etc. in order to eliminate legal uncertainty and danger as a legitimate patent-holder, and as such, seeks confirmation that the instant patent can be used solely without being subject to the restrictions prescribed in Article 4(1) of the Sharing Agreement, since the instant contract was terminated, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the instant patent can be used solely without being subject to the restrictions prescribed in Article 4(1)(c) of the Sharing Agreement.

B. The defendants' assertion

As a joint inventor of the patent of this case, there is room to interpret that the patent of this case and the patent of this case can be jointly applied to the Plaintiff, including entering into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the sharing of the patent of this case and the right to share the outcome thereof, etc., by gross mistake that the Defendant or the Defendant thought the Plaintiff as the inventor of the patent of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants expressed their intent to cancel the contract of this case to the Plaintiff around April 2008. In addition, the agreement of this case constitutes a company’s own transaction, and thus, was null and void since the agreement of this case was not followed by the resolution of the board of directors of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim on the main claim is

As above, notwithstanding the invalidity or cancellation of the pertinent joint ownership contract, the Plaintiff asserted its validity as a counterclaim, and thus, the Defendant Company claims against the Plaintiff as follows. ① The Plaintiff seeks to verify that each patent right listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 5 and each patent application listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 is not an inventor, and ② to confirm that the contract between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff was null and void.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. Determination as to the defense prior to the merits of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the status of co-owner of a patent in the main lawsuit

The Defendants asserted that this part of the claim for confirmation is unlawful as there is no legal interest, since the Plaintiff is not an inventor of a patent right listed in the attached Table 1 list, and the Plaintiff did not have succeeded to the right of share from the Defendant Company holding the patent right, and the contract of sharing of this case also invalidated or cancelled, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s right of share in the patent right should be invalidated through invalidation

However, the issue of whether the Plaintiff is a joint owner of the patent right listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is a matter to be determined through the review of the merits, and in this case where no evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff’s patent equity right would be invalidated prior to the hearing, the Defendants’ defense on the merits shall not be accepted.

B. Part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the inventor status among the counterclaims

1) The Defendant asserts the right to claim the instant lawsuit on the premise that the Plaintiff is an inventor, even though the Plaintiff is not an inventor of the outcome of the instant case, such as each patent right listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 5, and each patent application listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6, and accordingly, sought confirmation that the Plaintiff is not in the position of the inventor of each patent right and each patent application.

2) However, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons. In other words, the inventor is entitled to obtain a patent, but in order to obtain a patent, the applicant is entitled to obtain a patent after filing a patent application, and, in particular, the country that takes the earlier application principle, the inventor is not the first inventor, but the first applicant is entitled to obtain a patent. Moreover, the inventor is not obliged to file a patent application and may transfer his/her right to obtain a patent to a third party. Accordingly, the inventor’s status and the status of the applicant or the patentee are not necessarily related to the invention. If the invention is already at the pre-application stage, the applicant is entitled to a remedy through the request for performance of the procedure for change of the applicant’s name against the applicant, and if the patent is registered, it is difficult to recognize the legal interest to seek confirmation of the inventor’s status of the patent in question, barring any special circumstances.

For the same reason, even if the Plaintiff is not an inventor, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s legal interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the Plaintiff’s inventor status. Therefore, the part of the Defendant’s counterclaim claiming confirmation of non-existence of the said inventor status is unlawful.

4. Determination as to the main claim

A. The validity of the instant sharing contract

1) Article 398 of the Commercial Act provides that a director may engage in a transaction with the company on his or her own account or a third party’s account only with the approval of the board of directors.

According to the instant development agreement entered into between the Defendant Company and Leph Stockholm, all the research outcomes of Leph him/her (Non-party 1) revert to the Defendant Company’s assets, and the outcomes of this case are all based on the non-party 1’s research outcomes as seen below, and thus, are the assets of the Defendant Company. The instant joint ownership agreement is deemed to transfer the shares of the instant outcomes belonging to the Defendant Company’s assets to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a director of the Defendant Company, and is subject to self-transaction with the director. However, since there is no dispute between the parties that did not approve the Defendant Company’s board of directors

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the instant joint ownership agreement was concluded on May 16, 2005, and the first and second applications, which were the basis of the instant patent, were concluded prior to the aforementioned joint ownership agreement, but were filed in the same manner as the content of the joint ownership agreement, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant were joint inventor, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants were joint applicants, at the time of the instant patent application, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to share the instant outcomes, including the instant patent, can be deemed to have been concluded, and the instant joint ownership agreement may be deemed to have been embodied and written. Accordingly, the instant patent may be deemed to be subject to the instant joint ownership agreement invalidated for the said reason.

2) On December 8, 2005, after the conclusion of the instant co-ownership agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the transfer of all rights to the instant outcomes to Cococote (hereinafter “Cote”) with the Defendant Company. The board of directors of the Defendant Company approved the conclusion of the said transfer agreement, and the said transfer agreement was made by delegation of disposal authority under Article 4(2) of the instant co-ownership agreement. Thus, the Defendant Company’s board of directors has ratified the instant co-ownership agreement through the said resolution of approval.

According to the statement No. 71-2 of the evidence No. 71-2, the defendant company transferred all rights to the outcomes of this case to the non-party company on December 15, 2005, and the non-party company entered into a development and transfer contract with each country on the outcomes of this case to conduct research on clinical experiments and improvement inventions and to pay royalties to the defendant company. The board of directors of the defendant company can recognize the fact that the conclusion of the development transfer contract is approved on the same day.

However, in order for a company to be deemed to have implicitly ratified a counter-transaction of the interests of directors, there should be grounds to deem that the board of directors, who has the authority to approve the transaction, knew of the interests of the directors related to the transaction and the important facts related thereto, should be recognized as the reason to deem that the ratification was made by permitting the fact that if the transaction was ratified, it would be able to cause damage to the company by converting the original null and void transaction into its validity, and that the directors shall be jointly and severally liable (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4284, May 10,

However, at the time when the board of directors of the defendant company approved the conclusion of the above development transfer contract, that is, the joint ownership of the rights vested in the assets of the defendant company with the plaintiff and the defendant is reported to the directors, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the directors accepted the joint ownership contract after reviewing the damages or responsibilities that the company and the directors may bear due to the development transfer contract

The plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

3) Therefore, all of the claims filed by the Plaintiff on the premise that the contract of this case was effective is without merit.

B. Determination on the Plaintiff’s patent application right or patent right claim as the inventor

1) The Plaintiff’s cause of claim is an inventor of the original patent of the outcome of this case. Thus, regardless of the instant joint ownership agreement, the Plaintiff’s intent to seek confirmation of the performance of each of the principal claims or of the patent rights, regardless of the patent right, is included in the purport of seeking confirmation of the performance

(ii) fact-finding;

A) From around 1998, in order to determine whether to invest in aviation cancer using gyroids developed by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “Japan”), Nonparty 1 requested a Japanese company (ISA), a Netherlands company, the representative of which was Nonparty 1, to conduct an effective experiment. At the time, the Plaintiff, who was in office at the time, was in Japan, was in charge of contact with Nonparty 1 in relation to the effective experiment.

B) As a result of the efficacy experiment, it was found that the efficacy of the crypology of the crypium was less than expected, and the crypology had a negative stance on the development of the crypium using the crypium.

C) On December 2, 1998, the Plaintiff exchanged Nonparty 1’s Ambassador at the Nomar hotel located in the Hustegian, with his opinion as to whether he could commercially use it, and around December 9, 1998, the Plaintiff requested evidence that each of the Ambassadors of the Samstegy and the Hustegy in the Samstegy in the Hustegy in the Hustegian, each of the Ambassadors of Samstegy in the Hustegy in the Mastegian, and discussed Nonparty 1 and the Mastegy in the Mastegy in the Mastegy in the Mastegian.

D) From October 198 to December 198 of the same year, Nonparty 1 proposed that the Plaintiff continue to conduct research and investment in the Gisung drugs by giving notice of the necessity and possibility of development of air routites using the Ambassador of the Chosium. The Gisung drugs eventually renounced the development of air routites using the Chosium, and on January 18, 1999, the Plaintiff notified Nonparty 1 of his intention to waive the Gisung drugs.

E) On April 199, Nonparty 1: (a) around 199, requested an experiment on the effect of an anti-pacta in the range of concentration from 0.01 to 100 Madylicacid; (b) requested an experiment on the effect of an anti-pacta in the range of concentration from 0.01 to 100 Madylica; (c) on November 1, 1999, Nonparty 1 received from the above Ancopologyr the research report stating the results under the above test as follows (hereinafter “the report of this case”) the research report on the effect of an anti-pacta (hereinafter “the report of this case”).

F) Around December 200, the Plaintiff, via the Plaintiff, had consultation for the research and development contract for gamba (i.e., opticalot medication (hereinafter “BA”) between the Plaintiff and Empha, for which Nonparty 1 serves as the representative director, but the said research contract was concluded upon the refusal of gambaculous medication.

G) On January 15, 2001, the Plaintiff sent a document stating that “ Nonparty 1 had found several ingredients independently, in the event of the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff would inform the Plaintiff of the material name and the in-depth research plan.” On February 9, 2001, Nonparty 1 notified the Plaintiff of the three materials as seen earlier through e-mail and the effect of the hama, and on the same day notified e-mail that e-mail would be voluntarily applied for patent if e-mail is not signed by the contract.

H) Nonparty 1 received the report of this case No. 1 from Naco test on November 1, 1996, and thereafter, did not directly file a patent application, etc. on the basis of the contents written in the report of this case No. 1 for more than one year from December 2000, on which the Plaintiff had reconvened.

(i) The Plaintiff introduced the Defendant Company and the Defendant, who were interested in the development of NAA on behalf of the NAA, to Nonparty 1, and entered into the instant development agreement around February 25, 2001 between the Defendant Company and YAE on the part of the Defendant Company. From the instant development agreement, the total cost of the first-stage program conducting the efficacy test, etc. on the part of the cell line of the human body of the chemical selected as NAAC was determined to be 95,000 U.S. (the total cost of the second-stage program conducting the development and verification of the analysis method for the detection of the NAA in the clinical and clinical table, was 1,612,00 U.S. 1,612,00 and 45 cancer patients, and the total expected cost of the third-stage program conducting the second-stage research, etc. on clinical 2nds to 45 cancer patients, and the result of the agreement that the Defendant Company did not enter into a contract on the following stage is collectively agreed as the research assets.

(j) After the development agreement of this case, Nonparty 1 sent to the Plaintiff a research supervisor as stipulated in the development agreement of this case the first report of this case, which partially modified the fakes, etc. on April 2001. The contents of the first report of this case were translated and filed the first application of this case around April 28, 2001.

(k) On August 7, 2001, the Plaintiff proposed to Nonparty 1 to undergo an additional experiment for kidy cancer at an interval of one day or two days, and proposed to Nonparty 1 to administer kidy cancer every day at the animal efficacy experiment on August 31, 2001. On November 27, 2001, the Plaintiff specifically participated in research and development related to the patent of this case, such as providing the toxic information on the Ambassador of Madysi (Ulsan). A researcher and the Defendant company’s person responsible for research and development under the development agreement of this case.

(l) around March 4, 2002, Lespathian sent to the Plaintiff a research report (hereinafter “the instant report”) stating the results of the experiment under the instant development agreement. Around April 25, 2002, the instant report was added to the content of the instant report, and the instant second application was filed prior to April 25, 2002.

(m) On May 2004, the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Korean Intellectual Property Office of the grounds for rejection that the patent application No. 2 of this case may easily make an invention from the prior art disclosed prior to the date on which the priority claim was made. Accordingly, the Plaintiff declared that the Plaintiff “the Plaintiff, as an inventor, expressed the first inventor that the Plaintiff had an anti-pactability and its efficacy as an initial inventor, it is proved that the efficacy of the patent is significantly excellent experimentally than the nautical miles, on the basis of the reaction form of the tegynaium as referred to in the prior art pointed out by the Korean Intellectual Property Office.” In particular, the patent of this case differs before the tegynae structure and the tegynae of the patent of this case, which is different from the prior art, and, in particular, the patent of this case is not easy to make an invention from the prior art.”

n) In relation to the patent of the instant case other than the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company did not have human resources with professional knowledge to manage and supervise the experiment method, etc. of the Stockholm pursuant to the instant development agreement.

A) After the registration of the patent right of this case, the share price of the defendant company increased rapidly. Accordingly, the defendant company assessed the plaintiff's contribution to the patent of this case and decided to grant the plaintiff the stock option for the first 130,000 shares registered common shares after the incorporation of the defendant company through the board of directors held on February 17, 2005. The decision was made at the general meeting of shareholders on March 18, 2005.

B) The first report of this case, which is the basis of the application of 1 of this case, states as follows: “This study was conducted to investigate whether the non-contributers, the non-contributers of Samsan Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slives

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap 2-4, Gap 12-14, Gap 20, Gap 26, Gap 28, Eul 28, Eul 23, Eul 25-28, Eul 31-33, Eul 36-37, Eul 46, Eul 57, Eul 74, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

3) Determination

In full view of all the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, even if the Plaintiff is either a sole inventor or a joint inventor with respect to the patent of the outcomes of this case, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff transferred or renounced the right to obtain a patent from the Defendant company. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the Plaintiff still holds the right as an inventor with respect to the patent of the outcomes of this case among the grounds for the principal claim is groundless.

(1) In order to develop an anti-climatic cancer using chemical substances, such as Matamera, etc., a person may obtain a realistic outcome (such as data capable of filing an application for a patent) through the efficacy experiment, such as seed cell line experiments, animals, and clinical trials. Such tests require enormous costs.

(2) The Plaintiff started to engage in the experiment upon Nonparty 1’s request by Nonparty 1 for the development of hyr cancer using gyroids as an employee of gyroids. The Plaintiff did not have an independent research on the hyroids and did not seem to have no personal research funds.

(3) Upon receiving a report on the contents and result of the experiment conducted by Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff requested investment in order to become aware of the possibility of developing booms using the bareboat Ambassador and to secure additional funds for experimental research.

(4) At the time of the conclusion of the instant development agreement, the Defendant Company decided to make an investment in Nonparty 1’s experimental research upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation, and was in progress to the extent that Nonparty 1’s experimental results were capable of filing a first application.

(5) After the Defendant Company decided to make an investment in the experiment research conducted by Nonparty 1 for the development of aviation cancer, the Plaintiff, while holding office as an auditor or director of the Defendant Company, supervised Nonparty 1’s experiments and delivered the results thereof to the Defendant Company, was in charge of the development of aviation cancer of the Defendant Company.

(6) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, all of the studies conducted by the Plaintiff presented the direction and conditions of the experiment to Nonparty 1 who conducted the experiment with the funds of the said company under the status of belonging to the said company, and there is no room to regard the Plaintiff as an employee’s invention even if it is recognized that there was a little inventive contribution.

(7) Although Nonparty 1’s results of the experiment appears to have been concluded in the presence of the Plaintiff, the instant development agreement was not included in the Plaintiff’s rights.

(8) Even after the instant development agreement was concluded on February 25, 2001, and the first application was made on April 28, 2001, there was no express agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding compensation for the Plaintiff’s contribution to the instant outcomes. However, upon the registration of the instant patent, the Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff a stock option of 130,000 common shares to the Plaintiff via the board of directors on February 17, 2005 and the general meeting of shareholders on March 18, 2005, and only on May 16, 2005, the instant joint ownership agreement resulted in the instant joint ownership agreement.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, all of the Plaintiff’s claims are without merit (However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, even if the Plaintiff becomes null and void in the instant co-ownership contract on the grounds as seen earlier, and it is difficult to deny the fact that Nonparty 1 contributed to the reversion of Nonparty 1’s experimental research, the registration of the instant patent right, and the outcomes of this case to the Defendant’s assets).

5. Determination on a counterclaim

The sharing contract of this case is recognized as invalid without the approval of the board of directors of the defendant company. Nevertheless, the plaintiff continues to exist in the sharing contract of this case, but claims the plaintiff's right under the sharing contract of this case as the main lawsuit of this case on the premise that the defendants' failure to perform their contractual obligations has been terminated. Thus, the legal interest to seek confirmation of nullity of the

Therefore, the defendant's above counterclaim claim should be quoted on the ground of the reason.

6. Conclusion

All of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant's claims for confirmation of the absence of an inventor's status among the defendant's counterclaims shall be dismissed as unlawful. Since the part of confirmation of invalidity of a contract should be accepted, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above, and

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge) Jin Tae (Presiding Judge)