1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In around 2005, the Plaintiff is developing and selling pipe braces. The said machines include new technology that can carry out other pipes without the need to replace the roller, and thus, have been registered as a patent.

However, in 2013, the Defendant supplied pipe boom-type boom, which is equipped with “B 2 high-speed correction rollers” to the Agricultural Technology Center (hereinafter “B agricultural Technology Center”), thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s patent right.

Therefore, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 20,360,000 (estimated damages of KRW 11,000,000,000).

B. Even if the Defendant supplied the pipe type with no “one-half-class correction roller,” the Defendant should be deemed to have infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right in accordance with Article 127 subparag. 1 of the Patent Act, if he/she assembled and used the pipe type on the part of the supplied goods to be two parts.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s representative director, C, has a patent (registration number) on D. One of the core points of this patent is that, unlike the existing products where “one correction rollr” is attached, direct diameters can be carried out without any need to replace the roller. 2) The B Agricultural Technology Center announced the public announcement on the site of the country operated by the Public Procurement Service in order to purchase agricultural machinery, etc. including the pipe pipe booming type around the summer in 2013, and the F, who was awarded a successful bid, purchased and supplied six of the pipe bline type-type online sales machine produced by the Defendant.

3. The Plaintiff’s employees visit the Agricultural Technology Center directly around March 2014 to the pipe type that was supplied as above, and the pipe type “a pipe bareboat correction roll is attached.”