Examples as far as the utility model right is not infringed.

It is not a manufacture or sale of the same cruel as the cruel registered with a utility model.

Article 30 of the Utility Model Act

Defendant

Attorneys Park Jae-il (private ships)

Busan District Court Decision 80No2522 delivered on December 1, 1980

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the fact that the defendant infringed the above utility model right by manufacturing 350 persons who filed for registration with the Korean Intellectual Property Office under Article 15075 of the Utility Model Act between October 15, 1978 and December 20 of the same year, by selling 350 persons who filed for registration with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (to be deemed as writing in writing as of September 3, 1978).

2. The term "technical idea utilizing the law of nature" refers to a practical new device concerning the shape of goods that can be used for industry or the structure of the structure of the goods or the combination (see Articles 3 and 5 of the Utility Model Act). Since the new device of this case is limited to all goods and part of the goods, it is also necessary to specify the scope of a request for registration in order to clarify it in the application for registration in a credit letter, the scope of a registered utility model right should be examined first on the basis of the claims.

3. According to the public notice of the application under Article 15075 of the Utility Model Act of this case filed on Sep. 11, 1978 and registered as the applicant of Sep. 11, 1978, it is apparent that the scope of the right of the registered utility model right is related to a device that makes the remainder in the bend part of the bend part of the bend part of the claim for registration, which is one of the scope of the claim for registration. Thus, the scope of the right of the registered utility model right shall be deemed to be related to the device that can be used to put the remainder inside the bend part of the claim for the filing and for the last time.

However, according to the records, it can be seen that the Defendant’s production is connected to the upper part of the upper part of the lower part and the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, which was the filing, and the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the lower part, connected to the upper part of the lower part of the Defendant’s production (this device of the Defendant is registered as a utility model No. 17249, Jan. 12, 1980). Thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s production is the same as the utility model of No. 15075 of the above registration.

Even though the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of the right of the utility model right, which led to the infringement of the utility model right by manufacturing the same device as the filing of the utility model right No. 15075 registration in a timely manner without disclosing what device the registered utility model right pertains to, and what scope of the right is again, and the decision of the court below maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance is also erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of the right of the utility model right, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. However, the decision of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance is also erroneous

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)