손해배상 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 25, 2014 to October 30, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s registered complaint received an exclusive license from B as to “registration complaint 1” (the drawings and claims 2 are omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) listed in attached Table 1 from January 1, 2010 to January 12, 2014, and as to “registration complaint 2” listed in attached Table 2, from January 1, 2010 to January 5, 2015.
B. After the Defendant filed a D patent application with respect to C and completed the patent registration as EF, the Defendant manufactured and sold the same C as the attached Form 3 (hereinafter “working product”) that applied the aforementioned application from around that time.
C. On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the prohibition of infringement of a utility model right (this Court 201Gahap7931) against the Defendant for the prohibition of infringement of a utility model right (this Court 201Gahap7931).
On July 19, 2012, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff stating that “the Defendant shall not make any offer, advertisement, or display for the manufacture, use, sale, lease, export, import, or sale or lease of the instant products, and shall not dispose of the instant products and semi-finished products, raw materials, and gold papers for their production, which are kept in the factory, office, warehouse, place of business, and other places.”
The defendant appealed and appealed against this, but all of the appeals were dismissed and the judgment above became final and conclusive.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. Plaintiff 1) Since around 2007, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive license on the 1 and 2nd registration device by producing the product that was conducted, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the profit gained by the infringement. 2) From around 2007 to 2011.