1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

East Asia LLC Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 22, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with interest of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs manufacturing and wholesale business, such as simple fire extinguishing tools and reinforcements, and the Defendant is a company that runs the business of manufacturing high-pressure gas.

B. On April 2010, the Plaintiff developed a pair-gu fire extinguishing machine product (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s product”) with “○○○○○○○○○○” and supplied it to the National Police Agency through the tender of the Public Procurement Service in 2010 and 2011.

C. On September 12, 2012, the Public Procurement Service (the National Police Agency for the Demand Agency) was selected as a successful bidder in the tender of the fire extinguishing equipment conducted through the National Integrated Electronic Procurement System (the National Police Agency) on September 12, 2012, and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Public Procurement Service for the goods of KRW 128,950,000 for the goods and KRW 10,372 for the goods and KRW 10,372 for the goods and KRW 128,950,000 for the goods and KRW 128,950 for the goods and KRW 10,000 for the goods. On the other hand, the notice of tender announced by the Public Procurement Service was accompanied by the specifications and drawings for the goods to comply with the specifications and drawings. The specifications and drawings are as shown in the attached form or the attached form.

D. In early 2013, the Defendant produced and supplied fire extinguishing appliances under the name of “(product name omitted)” (hereinafter “Defendant products”) to the National Police Agency. The size of the Plaintiff’s products and Defendant’s products is almost the same as a height of about 160mm and about 85mm, such as the attached photographic image, and the shape, pattern, leakage, and safety pins are almost the same. However, there are few differences only in luminous and luminous.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 4 through 6, the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

From April 2010, the Plaintiff developed the Plaintiff’s product and supplied it to the National Police Agency through the bidding by the Public Procurement Service. The Defendant manufactured and supplied the same product to the Plaintiff in the bidding in 2012. The Defendant’s above act constitutes an unfair competition act under subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) and Article 2 subparag. 1 (i) of the same Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”), and even if not, it constitutes an unfair competition act under subparagraph 1 (j) of the same subparagraph (other acts of infringing on other’s economic interest by using the outcome, etc. made by other person’s investment or effort for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 102,850,65 won [the Plaintiff’s total amount of damages caused by the said unfair competition act, KRW 19,200, KRW 23055, KRW 2053254,201].

(b) Markets:

(i) Determination on the assertion that it falls under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

As seen earlier, the size of the Plaintiff’s products and the Defendant’s products is almost the same as the height of about 160mm and about 85mm, and the shape, shape, pressing, and safety pinion are almost the same. However, it appears that only a little difference exists in color, luminous, and luminous.

However, as seen earlier, the Public Procurement Service demanded that the product be in accordance with the specifications and drawings of the product as a supplementary condition while announcing the announcement on September 12, 2012. Since the product was supplied by the Plaintiff until the transfer, the specifications and specifications of the product as requested by the Public Procurement Service were similar to the product of the Plaintiff. In the case of two-dimensional portable fire extinguishers such as raw materials and Defendant products, the product was sold under the product name "(name omitted)" from November 2007 to the Korea Food & Drug Corporation from around July 2009. In light of the fact that there was no difference between the total weight and medicine, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s total weight and medicine, and that the total weight and medicine volume of the product of the Defendant’s product are in accordance with the specifications of the product requested by the Public Procurement Service, and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s product was in accordance with the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, even if there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff had already been in the form of an unfair competition act to protect the product of the Plaintiff’s.

Judgment on the assertion that it falls under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Do governor Unfair Competition Prevention Act

On July 30, 2013, after the defendant completed the supply to the National Police Agency on 2013, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act was amended, and the above provision cannot be applied to the defendant's act done before the amendment. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Huung-Jung-si