Main Issues

Whether Article 186 of the Patent Act and Article 86(2) of the Trademark Act (the part to which Article 186(1) of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis) violate Article 101(1) and Article 27(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Summary of Judgment

Article 186 of the Patent Act and Article 86 (2) of the Trademark Act (the part to which Article 186 (1) of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis) are contrary to the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution and the principle of judicial state that the jurisdiction belongs to the court, and deprives the people of the right to a trial by a judge. Therefore, there is considerable reason to argue that Article 101 (1) and Article 27 (1) of the Constitution are violated.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 186 of the Patent Act, Article 86(2) of the Trademark Act, Articles 27(1) and 101(1) of the Constitution

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 91Mo2 Dated December 23, 1991 (Dong)

Applicant, Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Text

With respect to the following cases, an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of Article 186(1) of the Patent Act and Article 86(2) of the Trademark Act (Article 186(1) of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis) shall be requested.

Reasons

The reason for filing an application for adjudication on the constitutionality of an applicant is as shown in the attached Form. However, since the provision of Article 186(1) of the Patent Act and Article 86(2) of the Trademark Act (Article 186(1) of the Patent Act applies mutatis mutandis) are contrary to the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution and the principle of judicial state that they belong to the court, and the deprivation of the right to a trial by a judge of the people, there is considerable reason for the applicant's assertion that the provision of Articles 101(1) and 27(1) of the Constitution is violated, it is against