A. In a case where a judgment subject to a retrial, which is recognized by the grounds for a retrial itself or by litigation materials, is different from that stated in the petition for a retrial, whether such judgment is deemed to have been mistakenly written and submitted.

(b) Where a lawsuit which shall be brought to the Korean Intellectual Property Office having jurisdiction over a trial decision in an appellate trial is brought to the Supreme Court, whether the lawsuit will be dismissed.

A. Although a petitioner filed a lawsuit for a retrial by stating the judgment of the appellate court as the judgment subject to a retrial, if it is apparent by his/her own assertion or litigation materials that the grounds for a retrial have become final and conclusive, the intention of the petitioner for a retrial is deemed to be subject to a retrial, but the petition for a retrial should be deemed to have been submitted by erroneously stating the indication of the judgment subject to a retrial in the petition for a retrial.

B. According to Article 178 of the Patent Act and Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Act, a party may file a petition for a retrial against a final and conclusive trial decision, and the retrial belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of a trial court which has rendered a trial decision. Thus, in a case where a lawsuit for a retrial to be filed with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office, which is the jurisdiction over a trial decision of the appellate trial subject to a retrial, is filed with the Supreme Court, Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the provisions on a retrial under Chapter 8 of the Patent Act, and the trial system under the Patent Act, which is a system where an administrative agency examines and determines disputes under the Patent Act, as the final judgment of the Supreme Court, cannot be seen as falling under the special source of a patent case, but the trial office of the Korean Intellectual Property Office seems to be only an administrative agency belonging to the administration, and thus, it cannot be applied by analogy the transfer provisions under the Civil Procedure

(a)Article 178 of the Patent Act, Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Order 83Meu1981 Decided February 28, 1984 (Gong1984,589) Decided April 16, 1984 (Gong1984,1015) (Gong1984,1015) Decided 84Hun-Ga, decided October 27, 1989 (Gong1989,179) (Gong1779). Supreme Court Decision 81Hu53 Decided December 14, 1982 (Gong1983,284)

(1) A person who made a request for adjudication

Appellants

Supreme Court Decision 92Hu22 delivered on December 11, 1992

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

Expenses for retrial shall be borne by a claimant for retrial.

Bain ex officio.

According to the records of this case, a trial decision was rendered against the respondent (responding to 2.1; hereinafter referred to as "responding to 18.2 of this case"), against the defendant (responding to 2.4 of this case) by stating that the defendant was a party member of this case's 18.2 of this case's trial decision which was filed to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (responding to 28.2 of this case's trial decision) and that the defendant dismissed the appeal of the respondent at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (responding to 98.2 of this case's trial decision No. 198.2 of this case's trial decision No. 97 of this case's new trial decision No. 94 of this case's new trial decision No. 98.2 of this case's new trial decision No. 98.1 of this case's new trial decision No. 97.2 of this case's new trial decision No.2 of this case's new trial decision No.97 of this case's new trial decision No.

However, according to Article 178 of the Patent Act and Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Act, a party may file a petition for a retrial against a final and conclusive trial decision, and the retrial belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of a trial court which rendered a trial decision to institute a retrial. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is obvious that the lawsuit of this case should be filed to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office, which is the jurisdiction of the trial decision of July 25, 191, 191, which is the case under the jurisdiction of the trial decision of the Korean Intellectual Property Office. Meanwhile, Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Patent Act, and the trial system under the Patent Act does not include Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the premise of the final judgment of the Supreme Court, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office appears to be a special law source for the patent case, but since the organization and trial of the relevant organization belong to the administration, the transfer provisions under the Civil Procedure Act cannot be applied by analogy between the courts, and the lawsuit of this case cannot be dismissed.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)