The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that Article 16 subparagraph 4 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) on the last day of the period has committed an unlawful misapprehension of legal principles

According to Article 16 subparag. 1 and subparag. 4 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), the case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the correction of a specification submitted on the day following the day of the correction period is submitted within a lawful period, although the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete hearing due to the erroneous determination that the correction period has expired.

Article 16 subparag. 1 and 4 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990); Article 14 subparag. 1 and 4 of the Patent Act

Hareg Korea Development Bank

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 89Na1332 dated August 31, 1990

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As to the ground of appeal by the applicant

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the rejection ruling made by applying Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 29, 1990) was justifiable on the ground that the statement after the appeal was filed was submitted within 30 days from the date of the appeal (amended by Act No. 4207, Dec. 28, 1989), and that the amendment cannot be adopted since it was submitted on Jan. 29, 1990 and the period for correction of the statement stipulated in Article 10-2 (3) of the former Patent Act has passed. Accordingly, the court below adopted only the revised statement as of September 5, 1989 after the front of the first time of the first time of the appeal on the ground that it was not stated or urbanized in the statement to the extent that it can be conducted by a person with ordinary knowledge in this field. However, the last day of the 9-year period for correction as the last day of the said 197-year period for correction, without the amendment.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)