The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In cases of preservative measures such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition, the confirmation of whether the right to be preserved exists shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits, and the creditor shall be held liable with the vindication. Thus, in cases where the execution creditor after such execution has become final and conclusive to lose the lawsuit on the merits, it shall not be presumed that the execution creditor had intention or negligence on the part of the execution creditor as to the damage suffered by the debtor due to the execution of such preservative measures, but where special circumstances exist, the presumption of intention

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da82046 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.). 2. A.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record.

1) The Defendant’s patent (patent registration number H, hereinafter “instant patent”) is deemed to be the Defendant’s patent before filing an application for provisional disposition and provisional seizure in the instant case.

(2) On January 31, 2006, Japan issued a decision of rejection of registration with respect to a foreign application with the same content as the patent, but thereafter, the registration of patent was completed in China, I, and K in the United States. 2) After the Defendant applied for provisional disposition against the Plaintiff and executed the provisional disposition against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial on the patent of this case against the Defendant (hereinafter “request for a trial on invalidation of the first instance”).

In the first petition for a nullity trial, a trial decision was rendered to the effect that the nonobviousness of Claim 1, 5, and 7 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1, 5, and 7”) of the instant patent is not denied, and the patent court and the Supreme Court became final and conclusive through the Patent Court.

3) In addition, in each case to confirm the scope of a right against the Plaintiff, the decision that the Plaintiff’s invention falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claims 1 and 7 became final and conclusive. 4) The Defendant’s first instance.