2010Guhap663 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for revocation of new technology certification

A Stock Company

The Minister of Knowledge Economy

B A.

November 18, 2010

December 16, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on November 23, 2009 against the "C" is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacturing business of records preservation products, and the defendant is designated as the D Association by being entrusted with the affairs of certification of new technology pursuant to Article 6 of the Technology Development Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

B. On January 8, 2009, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) submitted an application for recognition of new technology with respect to the description of “E (hereinafter referred to as the “new technology of this case”) to the Director of the D Association as a new technology under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act, for a company engaging in the manufacture, distribution, etc. of records preservation products:

(1) Technical name: E

(2) Model name: F

(3) Main contents and characteristics.

- The prevention of damage to relics and records that would be prejudicial to the contact between chemicals and disinfection items by liquid sector by inducing the introduction of chemicals by compulsory transmission means;

- To maximize disinfection efficiency by producing and utilizing independent nitrogens;

- eco-friendliness - 100% of plant extraction ingredients and safety verification completed, which are unrelated to human body/environment;

- High-speed weathering method using multi-public Nets

-the extension of the lifespan of disinfection articles by antixiation action of disinfection agents;

- Prevention of damage to the disinfection articles through free solar practice control with material;

- Shall maintain and coordinate the quality of nitrogen itself, and the degree of net production and utilization at a fixed time;

- It is possible to set time according to the status of preservation and degree of damage of the disinfection;

- - 3 methods of disinfection may be applied with the material of the disinfection

(4) Technological ripple effects.

- The development of eco-friendly disinfection technology to prevent biological damage of important records and relics can be conducted safely and conveniently and contribute to the scientific work for the preservation of cultural heritage in Korea as well as in the world.

- It is possible to apply the prevention of biological damage, such as various principal materials and relics of archives and archives stored in public entities, museums, universities, libraries, libraries, art galleries, hospitals, enterprises, etc.;

C. On March 19, 2009, the Defendant announced the new technology of this case as "C" on April 28, 2009, after the first examination (documents and interviews), the second examination (on the spot examination), and the third examination (the comprehensive examination) in accordance with the operating guidelines of the new technology recognition system (the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 2009-15, hereinafter referred to as "Operational Guidelines"), and received an objection, after which the Defendant announced the new technology of this case as "C" on April 28, 2009, the new technology of this case as "the name of the new technology" and the certification period from 2009, 4, 28 to April 27, 2012.

D. On July 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the president of the D Association by asserting that the instant new technology was a technology that had been sold and commercialized as a product prior to obtaining a new technology certification, and on November 10, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a document stating to the effect that it would request the cancellation of the instant new technology certification against the Intervenor.

E. On November 23, 2009, the president of the Association requested the intervenors to provide explanatory materials, and conducted an examination by holding a review committee. On November 23, 2009, the new technology of this case is confirmed to be a process technology comprehensively implemented, such as weather technology, habitation technology, nitrogen generating device, anti-surgical device, and disinfection medicine technology, and the model (F) to which the new technology of this case is applied does not have any reason for revocation of new technology certification since the new technology of this case was sold before certification."

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 9, 10, 11, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. In order to file a revocation suit against the rejection disposition issued by the Defendant and the Intervenor, the application to the administrative agency and the rejection disposition issued by the administrative agency should exist as a matter of course. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the president of the Association after the new technology certification of this case and filed an application for revocation of the new technology certification of this case with the Defendant, and the president of the Association did not directly accept the Plaintiff’s objection, and the Defendant did not directly issued the instant rejection disposition against the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not have the right to file an application under the laws and regulations or the cooking seeking revocation of the new technology certification of this case

B. Determination

(1) Whether there is an application for revocation of certification and a rejection disposition therefor

On November 10, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a document stating that the new technology of this case was commercialized as the product before the certification was granted to the defendant on November 10, 2009, stating that the new technology of this case was already commercialized as the product, and that the plaintiff requested thorough investigation of the new technology certification technology of this case. The president of the D Association requested the intervenor to provide an explanation, while holding an examination committee and conducting an examination, and confirmed that the plaintiff against the plaintiff on November 23, 2009 did not have any ground for revocation of the new technology certification as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the above facts, the document stating that the plaintiff submitted to the defendant on November 10, 2009, " thorough investigation of the new technology certification technology of this case to the defendant" can be seen as an application for revocation of the new technology certification of this case against the defendant, and further, the plaintiff's rejection of the new technology certification of this case after completing the examination of the grounds for revocation of the new technology certification of this case to the plaintiff.

(2) Whether the applicant has the right to request

(A) The so-called rejection disposition that an administrative agency receives an application from a citizen and does not perform any act without satisfaction with the application, is subject to appeal litigation as a kind of administrative disposition. However, the act of seeking an application to become an administrative disposition shall be a public authority, such act shall be an act affecting the applicant’s legal relationship, and the applicant shall have the legal and sound rights to such application.

(B) Article 1 of the Technology Development Promotion Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the development of the national economy by facilitating the development of new technology and strengthening the international competitiveness of the company by distributing the results thereof." Article 6 of the Act provides that "The Minister of Knowledge Economy may allow a person who has obtained new technology certification to use a mark indicating that the technology has obtained new technology certification (Paragraph 3). The government shall take measures to support the person who has obtained the new technology, such as providing financial support to create a new demand and preferential purchase of products using the new technology (Paragraph 4). In addition, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the person who has received the new technology certification shall have the right to file an objection (Paragraph 2) and the defendant's interested parties in the new technology certification procedure (Paragraph 3), and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the defendant's interested

In full view of the above relevant legal provisions, the Technology Development Promotion Act does not merely protect the public interest related to the promotion of the development of new technology and the dissemination of outcomes, but also protect the private interest of the person who has obtained a new technology by recognizing various exclusive positions, financial support, and priority rights for the purpose of the promotion of the development of the new technology. Thus, the status of the person who has obtained a new technology recognition disposition under the law is not merely indirect or factual or economic interests but also constitutes a direct and specific interest protected by the relevant law. Meanwhile, the law does not directly provide that the person who has obtained a new technology certification recognizes the right to apply for the cancellation of the new technology certification under Article 14 of the Act to the person who has a competitive relationship with the person who has obtained the new technology, but it does not directly provide that if the new technology certification is maintained even if the grounds falling under the grounds for revocation of the new technology certification are revealed, it may infringe on the specific and direct legal interest of interested parties, such as the light business operator, etc.

(C) Therefore, if the new technology certification of the instant technology is maintained, the Plaintiff, a light business operator, shall be deemed to have suffered infringement of specific and direct legal interests. Therefore, it is reasonable to authorize the Plaintiff to file an application seeking revocation of the designation of the new technology pursuant to Article 14 of the Act. Therefore, this part of the safety defense is without merit.

3. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Before obtaining the certification of the new technology of this case, the intervenor had applied the same technology as that of the new technology of this case to the N Research Institute and the O Center on March 31, 2007, and has publicized the 'F' identical to the new technology certification model of this case issued at H, an incorporated association on March 1, 2007. ② At the J exhibition, 'K' exhibits 'L' and distributed 'L' products made by using the new technology of this case as it is at the time, and ③ around October 2007, 'L' was supplied to the M organization. (4) On January 2, 2008 and around February 2, 2009, the intervenor supplied the products that applied the new technology certification of this case to the N Research Institute and the O Center P room with the products identical to the new technology of this case.

Therefore, even though the intervenor had commercialized the product by applying the pertinent new technology prior to being certified, it shall be concealed and obtained the new technology certification of this case, which constitutes "a person who has obtained the new technology certification by means of continuous acceptance and other illegal means" as provided by Article 14 (1) 1 of the Act. Thus, the defendant's rejection of the new technology certification of the intervenor should be revoked, and thus, the rejection disposition of this case should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the records and images of Gap evidence 2 through 8, 12 through 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact-finding results on the R authority of this court, the intervenor published the advertisement of "S" in subparagraph 11 of T-S, which is issued by an incorporated association, around Mar. 31, 2007, and displayed "U equipment", "V equipment L" in the "International T-S International T-S, held from Nov. 1, 2007 to Nov. 2, 2007, and distributed car-sack, and also supplied "S" to M institutions around Feb. 2007, and "W equipment" to the 0 Center around Feb. 2008.

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 16 through 32 are insufficient to recognize that products advertised as above or products supplied by the Intervenor to the R&D institution are products using the same technology as the technology authenticated by the new technology of this case. Rather, there are no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Intervenor by adding the whole arguments to the above facts and the purport of arguments, i.e., (i) the new technology of this case to disinfect the microorganisms, such as fung and fung, gung, etc. inhabited in historical and records through gunging natural drugs, which make it impossible for the Intervenor to remove the new technology of this case by simply combining the above evidence and evidence Nos. 16 to 32, and to maximize the efficiency of disinfection with the existing technology of this case. (ii) In particular, the new technology of this case to restore the new technology of this case to its original condition and to maximize its function such as disinfection and gung, and thus, it is essential that the new technology of this case can only be destroyed or damaged by its internal function of disinfection and grology.

- Comprehensively taking into account the fact that the product to which the new technology of this case was applied consists only of the methods such as the generation of nitrogen and nitrogen gas - disinfection chemicals, and furthermore, the 'S' also supplied to M institutions was not subject to the above damp-saving function and saved function, unlike the product sold prior to the certification of new technology, has the characteristics clearly distinguishable from that of the product that maximizes disinfection effect by comprehensively embodying the damp-conditioning function and saved function and preventing damage to relics and records as much as possible, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor sold the product that applied the same technology as the product subject to the certification prior to the certification of the new technology of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, judge or mineral offender;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Mobile-Appellee

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.