The lower court: (a) prepared for the instant Claim Nos. 3 (hereinafter “instant Claim Nos. 3”) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number F) named as “C”); and (b) determined that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim No. 3 invention.

However, according to the records, in a separate invalidation trial on the instant Claim 3 (Patent Tribunal No. 2014Da2810) on the instant Claim, the adjudication, which included the correction of the claims of the instant Claim 3, was rendered and became final and conclusive on February 2, 2016, after the pronouncement of the lower judgment. As such, the instant Claim 3 invention ought to be deemed to have been registered in accordance with the specification after correction under Articles 133-2(4) and 136(8) of the Patent Act (Amended by Act No. 14035, Feb. 29, 2016).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which examined and determined whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right, prior to the correction, was erroneous in the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes which affected the judgment, since there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.