(a) The case holding that the registered device does not fall under the scope of the right in the registered device, as a device in which the registered device and the technical composition are different and the effect of which is improved;

B. Whether the principle of res judicata is excluded in a case where the interpretation of a party or evidence is different under the Utility Model Act (negative)

(a) The case holding that the registered device is a device whose registered device and technical composition are different and whose effect is improved, and which does not fall within the scope of the right in the registered device;

B. The principle of res judicata under Article 147 of the Patent Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 29 of the Utility Model Act, means that any person cannot file a petition for a trial on the same facts and evidence when a trial decision on a trial or a trial on an appeal becomes final and conclusive, or a judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the foregoing principle is not excluded solely on the basis of the difference of parties or the interpretation

A. Article 25 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990), Article 147 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Hu585 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1167)

Attorney Seo Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 110 decided July 26, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the composition of six bquerelgs in the face of the bquerel case was published in the Japanese Utility Model Gazette before the application of the present device, and thus the right to the present device does not extend. (a) There is no technology constitution that prevents noise due to the formation of a space between the steel plate’s sliding sliding sliding sliding sliding sliding and the sliding sliding sliding sliding, among the contents of the present device, on the other hand, the present device is not identical, and the two is not identical, because there is a technical composition and operating effect that enhances the sliding sliding sliding sliding skeing, and thus, the (a) device does not fall within the scope of the right to the present device. In other words, the court below held that the (a) device cannot be deemed as falling within the scope of the right to the present device.

The scope of the right to a registered utility model needs to be determined by comparing the outline of the device and the outline of the device compared thereto on the basis of the scope of the claim for registration, and the scope of the right can not be determined until this is unless it can be seen as an organic combination of new technical effects (see Supreme Court Decision 88Hu585 delivered on June 27, 1989). According to the records, the scope of the claim for registration of the device can not be determined unless it is seen that the substance of the device and the outline of the device compared thereto are included in the publicly known grounds for the public announcement (see Supreme Court Decision 8Hu585 delivered on June 27, 1989). The public announcement of the application for registration of the device can not be seen as having been made using 4 parts of the device, excluding the main processing device, which form a lid of the lid of the two sides of the iron plates and form a lid of the lid, and it can not be seen as having been made using 98 parts of the device in its original form.

If the main device is divided into the technical purpose, technical composition, and operational effect under the above premise, the two are similar in that the technical purpose is the same in that it aims at the main processing, and the effect of the operation is similar in that it makes the smoke smooth by using water. However, the (a) invention has improved the effect of the operation by adding a brick in comparison with the main device, and in its technical composition, it has different methods of composition, and it cannot be said that the attachment of a original gate can be easily designed by a person who has an ordinary knowledge in the technical field, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the (a) device does not fall within the scope of the right to the original device.

The conclusion is justified in the conclusion of the original adjudication of the above opinion, and therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss it.

(2) There is no ground for the Tribunal to provide the parties with an opportunity to state their opinions with the interpretation of the evidence newly made by the Tribunal. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

(3) The principle of res judicata under Article 147 of the Patent Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 29 of the Utility Model Act, provides that any person may not file a petition for a trial on the same facts and evidence when a trial decision on a trial or a trial decision on an appeal becomes final and conclusive, and the same facts and evidence are not different from the interpretation of evidence. Thus, the above principle is not excluded. Thus, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, the court below's explanation that the principle of res judicata is not applied on the ground of the above reasons. However, the court below rejected the argument as to the above principle by deeming that the previous trial decision and this case are not identical to the previous trial decision, and thus, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. The appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)