(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.3.31.선고 2015가합3451 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 598,455,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A filed an application for a patent as to “C” his invention on October 2004, 25, and completed the registration of the patent as of D date E (hereinafter “instant patent invention”). Plaintiff A has produced and sold “H (hereinafter “the instant luminous ground”) by performing the instant patent invention from around 2004 to around 2009, while operating “F” corporation from around 2010 to around 2014, and “H (hereinafter “the instant luminous ground”).

B. On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff B, an son of Plaintiff A, transferred the patented invention of this case from Plaintiff A and completed the registration of transfer in the Patent Register.

C. The instant patent invention and the instant luminous plane zone made therefrom can reduce the production and installation costs by putting more than two shapes, etc. on one support unit in a stable fashion of light and reducing the number of supporting unit at the same time by putting two or more lights, etc. In addition, when using a longer luminous light, the midline of the given light is fixed and maintained by the support unit, and the production and installation costs can be reduced by arbitrarily controlling the location, interval, and height of the installation of the given light through the adjustment of support unit, thereby preventing climfication ( Black phenomenon) and facilitating the necessary lighting. In addition, when using a longer luminous light, the middle part of the given light is fixed and maintained by the support unit and preventing the display phenomenon caused by the use of the given light for a long time.

D. A large number of lighting signboards installed in the city are installed by connecting both blaps with electric wires without any separate support devices and by putting them up by supporting and screening them or by combining them with iron dusts, etc. In addition, electricity connections also have been installed by attaching blaps to the edge of the electric wires connected to the fixed blaps and attaching them to the end of the fixed blaps (Therefore, the blaps are not fixed inside the blaps, but distributed to the end of the electric wires) instead of the stability devices and blaps attached to the blaps inside the blaps, and they have been used for lighting in large quantities by domestic and overseas electrical appliances.

E. The institution designated by the Defendant as the safety certification institution for electrical appliances pursuant to Article 9 of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, the Korea Testing Laboratory for Industrial Technology, and the J institution (hereinafter referred to as the “safety certification institution”) are continuing to provide safety certification to the above small and medium enterprise producing the above small and medium enterprise with the safety certification standards on the grounds that both the composition of the product and the small and medium enterprise are in conformity with the safety certification standards.

F. On October 2010, the Plaintiff A and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff et al.”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiff et al. suffered damages by the Plaintiff et al. by illegally performing safety certification on the electrical appliances with respect to the safety device of electrical appliances attached pursuant to Article 9 of the Electric Appliances Safety Control Act by using the Ulsan District Court 2007Gahap6037, the Defendant violated individual safety standards. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the Plaintiff et al. on March 18, 2009. Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff et al. appealed on July 8, 2009, the lower court concluded the fact-finding hearing on July 8, 2009, and sentenced the Plaintiff et al. to dismiss the appeal by the Plaintiff et al. on August 19, 2009, the Supreme Court again appealed as the Supreme Court 2009Da70791, but the Supreme Court dismissed all of the aforementioned appeals as it did not exist.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Article 3(1) of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act provides that a manufacturer of electrical appliances subject to safety certification shall obtain safety certification from a safety certification institution as prescribed by Ordinance of Ministry of Industry, Industry and Energy, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act divides the model of electrical appliances subject to safety certification into a basic model and a derivative model. However, the stability of the product subject to safety certification is different from that of the product subject to safety certification that combines the product subject to safety certification with the product subject to the product subject to safety certification, which directly affects the safety application standards and safety. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a derivative model of each basic model because the product subject to safety certification under the Electric Appliances Safety Control Act cannot be seen as falling under the same electrical appliances group. Therefore, it is unlawful for the manufacturer of the product subject to safety certification to illegally remodel the product, and it is unlawful for the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy to grant safety certification by applying individual safety standards for each product subject to safety certification and stability machine.

(2) Under Articles 2.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.2 and 17.3 of the "Safety Standards (K6058-1) for 'Blouseet' as shown in the [Attachment sheet] among electrical appliances safety standards, the standards for 'blouseet' and 'blouseet (K6040) safety standards for 'blouseet' and 'blouseet' (K6040), 2.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.2 and 17.3, it is not necessary to maintain the safety standards for 'blouseet' as well as to maintain the safety standards for 'blouseet' (e.g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.

(3) Therefore, safety certification agencies do not provide safety certification to the above so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called type stability machine in accordance with the pre-use standards for electrical appliances, and even though domestic and foreign electrical appliances companies should actively control the production and sale of so-called so-called type stability machine in violation of the above safety standards, the above so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "pro-called" type stability machine in mass production and sale of so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called "pro-called" type stability machine

(4) Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered enormous business losses due to the failure to secure the selling place of the mine light support unit of this case, which is the only product that meets the above safety standards, and they actually suffered from bankruptcy (F, which was operated by the plaintiff Eul, entered into a contract with L, around 2003, to supply the mine light zone of this case and sell it during the time, but L, a contract with L, a corporation, was reversed and goes bankrupt due to the stability of low-price's malketing type, which is distributed in large quantity during the time, and the State Technical Standard Institute promised to collect and discard the plaintiff Eul's malket type from the plaintiff A around 2010, and the above plaintiff established G, which was believed by the State Technical Standard Institute, but did not comply with the above promise, thereby resulting in enormous property losses and mental suffering which could not be hedging.

(5) Therefore, the defendant did not properly guide and supervise the above error of the above safety certification agency and its employees and continued the above illegal certification, and the plaintiffs suffered damages, ① the sales profit of 589,875,000,000 won from July 1, 2004 to July 30, 2015, multiplied by the total quantity of the optical light support unit of this case sold during the original period (the total amount of 10% of the consumption of domestic signboards, etc.) multiplied by one sales profit per unit (the total amount of 7,150,000,000 won (the total amount of 50,000 won per month losses suffered during the above period), ② the total amount of damages of 1,430,000 won (the total amount of damages of 50,500,000 won per unit) suffered by the plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) Plaintiff A and Plaintiff F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff et al.”) filed a lawsuit for damages against the Defendant as the same cause of claim as the instant lawsuit at the Ulsan District Court (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff et al.”) and received a judgment against the Defendant on March 18, 2009. After that, both the Plaintiff’s appeal and final appeal were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the res judicata effect of the said judgment extends to Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B who succeeded to the instant patented invention from the Plaintiff et al.

(2) Of course, neither the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act nor any safety standard provides that the lux and stability machine shall be defined as the use of a lux or the lux and stable lux shall be used. Therefore, inasmuch as the lux and stable lux are prohibited from being used without a luxing light appliance, the Plaintiffs’ assertion premised on the premise that the luxical light zone in this case is an essential element in order to meet the above safety standard is without merit.

(3) It is legitimate that the safety certification agency has granted the safety certification to the small diskettes and the stability machine by applying the individual safety standards to the small diskettes and the stability machine.

(4) Even if the family safety certification agency has made a mistake as alleged by the plaintiffs in relation to the safety certification of the scamet type stability machine, there is no proximate causal relation between such mistake and the damages claimed by the plaintiffs.

(5) Therefore, the defendant does not have the duty to compensate the plaintiffs for damages.

3. Determination as to whether it conflicts with res judicata

When a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the existence or non-existence of a claim subject to the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and where a party who has lost in a prior suit claims against the party to the prior suit against the party to the prior suit in conflict with the res judicata of the prior suit, the court shall not make any judgment inconsistent with the judgment by res judicata of the prior suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da26035, Jun. 14, 2012; 2009Da82046, 82053, Feb. 11, 2010). In this case, the standard time of res judicata is the time when the fact-finding hearing of the prior suit is concluded. Considering the claim between the prior suit of this case and the lawsuit of this case, when comparing the contents of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the part of the prior suit of this case and the lawsuit of this case, all of them are seeking damages against the Plaintiff on the ground that the safety certification institution affiliated with the Defendant is illegal in the stability of the signet type.

As long as a judgment dismissing Plaintiff A’s claim in the previous suit of this case becomes final and conclusive, res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit of this case pursuant to the aforementioned legal principles cannot be determined inconsistent with the contents of the judgment, because the res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit of this case would be excessive to Plaintiff A’s claim among the lawsuits of this case. Therefore, the part regarding the claim for damages caused by the Defendant’s tort until July 8, 2009, which is the date of closing argument in the previous suit of this case, among the lawsuits of this case of Plaintiff A, is final and conclusive as the claim for damages against the Defendant

Accordingly, the plaintiff A cannot be deemed as a derivative model after the judgment of the previous suit in this case, since the "the product combining the basic model under the Enforcement Rule of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act" and the interpretation of the Ministry of Government Legislation and the "shall not be used without the type or luminous light fixture" constitute a case where a new ground arises after the closing of argument in the previous suit in this case after receiving a reply of the International Standard Conference on Electrical Standards (IEC), the res judicata effect of the previous suit in this case does not extend to this case. However, the "new ground arising after the closing of argument" refers to the fact itself, and it does not mean a new evidence as to the existing legal relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41349 Decided 16, 200), and the chairperson's reply of the International Conference on Standards (IEC) subcommittee or the Ministry of Government Legislation (IEC) of the above plaintiff's assertion in this case does not mean any interpretation or opinion on the existing factual relations itself and it does not mean any new legal relationship itself.

4. Determination on the claim for damages (excluding the parts rejected in the foregoing)

A. The plaintiffs' claims

In light of the above allegations by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' claim cause of this case is based on the premise that the safety certification agency under the defendant's control is an illegal remodeling product that does not harm the safety certification under the statutes and international standards, and the safety certification agency has certified it, and the defendant also did not properly guide and supervise the safety certification agency. Since the plaintiffs suffered enormous damages due to the above defendants' tort, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs the total amount of KRW 50,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, such as property damage, loss, consolation money, etc.

(b) Markets:

(1) A combination model consisting of respective basic models, such as small diskettes and stabilizers;

As a model that does not exist under the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, whether safety certification for this model violates the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act.

The relevant laws and regulations are as follows:

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

3. The term "electric appliances subject to safety certification" means electric appliances recognized by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy as highly likely to cause damage to fire, electric shock, etc. due to their structure and methods of use, etc., which are prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy

Article 3 (Safety Certification)

(1) Any person who intends to manufacture electrical appliances subject to safety certification as a business or manufacture them in any foreign country and export them to the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "manufacturer") shall obtain safety certification from any safety certification institution for each model of electrical appliances subject to safety certification (referring to the model of products with unique names prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy;

(3) Where the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy satisfies the safety standards for electrical appliances subject to safety certification and factory examination standards, a safety certification agency shall grant safety certification: Provided, That safety certification for electrical appliances subject to safety certification, the safety standards of which are not publicly notified, may be granted, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry

Article 15 (Safety Certification of other Electrical Appliances)

(1) Manufacturers of electrical appliances (hereinafter referred to as "other electrical appliances") other than electrical appliances subject to electrical appliances subject to safety certification, electrical appliances subject to the supplier's assurance of conformity may obtain safety certification by the safety certification agency for each model of the relevant electrical appliances.

If electrical appliances that intend to obtain safety certification under paragraph (1) fall under any of the following subparagraphs, the safety certification agency shall grant safety certification:

1. Where the safety certification agency meets the safety standards (international standards for the safety of the relevant electrical appliances, if no approval has been granted) determined by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy after obtaining approval therefor from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy; and where the manufacturer of the relevant electrical appliances has manufacturing facilities, inspection facilities, technical capability, etc. that enable him/her to continue

A safety certification agency may establish business regulations for the methods, procedures, etc. of safety certification under paragraph (1).

○ The definitions of terms used in these Rules under Article 2 (Definitions) of the Enforcement Rule of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy) are as follows:

1. The term "design" means a product in which the design, function, etc. of which are different from each other gives each other a unique name to distinguish electrical appliances;

2. The term "basic model" means a model of electrical appliances, the safety confirmation and reporting thereof (hereinafter referred to as "pre-verification report, etc.") under Article 11 (1) of the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Supplies (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), or the supplier's assurance of conformity (hereinafter referred to as "self-declaration of conformity") under the main sentence of Article 14-3 (1) of the Act, of the parts directly affecting the safety standards and safety of each electrical appliances group referred to in attached Table 1, from among the electrical appliances group of the same model;

3. The term "solch model" means a model of electrical appliances other than the basic model among the group of electrical appliances of the same model that directly affects the standards for the safety application and safety of each electrical appliances group referred to in attached Table 1. Article 3 (Scope of Electrical Appliances subject to Safety Certification, etc.);

(1) Any electrical appliances subject to safety certification shall be electrical appliances specified in attached Table 2, using exchange power or direct power source not exceeding 1,000 volts.

attached Table 2.

11. Lighting fixtures;

(b) A general lighting organization;

(d) Guidelines for operating the safety management of electrical appliances with a stable, internal or external lamps (public notice of the National Technical Standards Institute);

Article 3 (Detailed Scope of Electrical Appliances, etc. subject to Safety Certification) (3) Any electrical appliances combined with at least two product functions shall be deemed a model, and the detailed criteria for the parts directly affecting the safety application standards and safety of each function before combination shall apply, respectively.

Article 38 (Application of Safety Standards) (1) The standard number and standard name of electrical appliances safety standards shall be as listed in attached Table 11.

(6) The purpose of the attached Table 11 Ket’s separate safety certification model for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances is to establish separate safety certification model for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances without specific safety certification standards for each type of electrical appliances, and to establish separate safety certification model for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances without specific safety certification standards for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances, taking into account the need for separate safety certification model for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances and their respective safety certification model under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances, and to ensure the safety certification model for each type of the above type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances and their respective safety certification model under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances without specific safety certification standards for each type of electrical appliances under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances and their respective safety certification model under the Act on the Safety Control of Electrical Appliances.

(2) The plaintiffs asserts to the purport that it is unlawful to allow the safety certification of the type of bubbles, which are the basis of individual safety standards (K60598-1, No. 5-1, and No. 5-1), and the response (IEC) of the International Standards Conference on Electricity and Electricity (IEC) with respect to bubbles, are prohibited from being used without a bubble light instrument, and only the bubble ground area of this case is a component indispensable for making a bubble signboard that conforms to the above safety standards, and the bubble type of bubbles that illegally attached only to the bubbles in a stable manner is an unlawful remodeling product that prevents the use of the bubble zone of this case.

First, according to the individual safety standards for light equipment (K60598-1), among the electrical appliances safety standards, the definition or safety standards for "one body type lamps", which is part of the light body, is related to the definition or safety standards of "one body type lamps", which is part of the light body, and therefore, it must be fixed to the light body as a matter of course. Thus, it cannot be interpreted that the registration body is fixed with support equipment such as the light surface area of this case, which is essential to the registration body, and it can not be interpreted that all small diskettes and stability are fixed with support equipment such as the light surface area of this case as claimed by the plaintiffs, and there is no basis to find that the price for the support of this case is essential to meet the safety standards of the light of this case.

Next, the plaintiffs are non-governmental consultative organizations established in 1906 for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in all matters concerning electrical and electronic fields and enhancing international understanding with respect to the response of the International Conference on Electrical Standards (IEC) No. 3, the International Electrical Conference on Electrical Standards (or International Electrical Technical Commission, htp:/www. : hereinafter referred to as 'IEC') is the non-governmental consultative organization established in 1906 for the purpose of promoting the international cooperation in all matters concerning standardization of electricity and electronic fields, and even before the institution of this case, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as having the above 34B subcommittee (IEC) on the e-mail of the above Standard Conference on Electrical Standards and 34B, and the above e-mail of the defendant's e-mail e-mail so that the above e-mail content of the e-mail can not be seen as having been installed separately from the above e-mail safety certification body's e-mail content.

In addition, even if the standards set forth in Articles 2.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.2, and 17.3 of the Safety Standards (K6040, Evidence A No. 5-2) for type luminous lamps (type 5.0), such as the attached electrical appliances safety standards, are examined, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone cannot be deemed to have violated the above safety standards.

(3) In full view of all other evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a mistake related to the safety certification of the safety certification agencies under the defendant's jurisdiction or a mistake in the direction and supervision of the defendant's safety certification agencies, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is difficult to find any evidence to find that there was a reasonable causal link between the damage and the damage.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.