[1] The scope of the right of a utility model right, consisting of non-public and non-public and technological parts

[2] Method of determining whether a utility model is identical or similar to a utility model

[3] The case holding that two devices concerning coagushes are different

[4] The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s acceptance of succession participation in the final appeal

[1] In a case where a registered complaint is filed by combining the parts, other than the publicly known technology and the publicly known technology, the scope of the right shall not be extended until the ground for publicly notified, which cannot be seen as an organic combination with new professional engineers.

[2] A utility model right is an object of protection of a technical idea relating to the shape, structure, or combination of articles. Thus, in determining whether a device is identical or similar to a registered utility model right, a comparison should be made by considering not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of articles, but also the effects of the device such as the use value and purpose of use.

[3] The case holding that the two devices about the coagulations are different in technical composition and action effects

[4] The succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention in the final appeal only when the succeeding intervenor transferred the utility model right to the registered appeal from the claimant for the trial, and the right to the registered appeal was raised in the final appeal. However, such application for intervention in the final appeal is not allowed in the final appeal

[1] Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [3] Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [4] Article 74 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 74 of the former Utility Model Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2409 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2618), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1926 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2119) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 81Hu56 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1334) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Hu179 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong190, 529), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu824 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong194, 720) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 197Da127175 delivered on July 27, 197

Claimant (Attorney Seo Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Appellant (Attorney Sick-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor succeeding to the respondent (Attorney Noh Byung-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Da192 dated February 26, 1994

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the motion for intervention by the succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed. Litigation costs incurred by the intervention shall be borne by the succeeding intervenor.

1. The grounds of appeal by the claimant's representative (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the submission period) are examined together.

A. Summary of grounds for the wind commission's trial

The lower court determined that: (a) it is more than 10 square meters in the form of 5 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out more than 10 square meters in front of (3%) registration form than 10 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out, and (b) more than 17 square meters in the form of 5 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out more than 10 square meters in front of (3) registration form, and more than 10 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out more than 10 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out (30 square meters in front of the device) registration form than 10 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out more than 10 square meters in front of the device (4) registration form. (a) It is assumed that there is no difference in the size of 5 square meters in front of the device so that it can be carried out more than 15 square meters in front of the device.

B. Determination of party members

(1) The scope of rights to the instant petition for registration

According to the record, with respect to paragraph 1 of the registered device, the description of the kitchen 61-47926 published prior to the filing of the application is indicated in the Utility Model Gazette (No. 4). According to the detailed description of the kitchen 61-47926, it shows a combination technology of the enormous screen dealing with the body of the protective tube and discharge crepans around it, and discharge crepans in the line of pressure, and the description of paragraph 1 of the registered device should be deemed to be an already known technology. In relation to the description of paragraph 4 of the registered device, the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description No. 86-5714 (Evidence 2) and No. 88-302 (Evidence 3) that is not a new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new description of the new one.

However, the court below recognized that almost all of the technical content of the registered device of this case has been an known art individually, but without examining whether they have any new operational effects by combining them, recognized the scope of rights as to the whole of the registered device of this case, and judged that (a) a device falls under the scope of rights in the registered device. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of rights in the registered device of utility model registration, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and failing to satisfy the reasons therefor.

(2) Whether the registered device of this case is identical to the device of this case

Since a utility model right is the object of protecting the form, structure, or the creation of a technical idea related to a type, structure, or combination of goods, in determining whether a device is identical or similar to the right of a registered utility model, a comparative study should be conducted by considering not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of goods, but also the use value of the device, the purpose of use, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Hu824, Jan. 11, 1994).

The records reveal that the equipment of this case is more likely to be separated from the front part of the equipment of this case and then separated from the front part of the equipment of this case, so that the equipment of this case can not be separated from the front part of the equipment of this case, and that there is no possibility that it can be separated from the front part of the equipment of this case (the front part of the equipment of this case) so that it can be separated from the front part of the equipment of this case, and that the new part of the equipment of this case can not be separated from the front part of the equipment of this case, and the new part of the equipment of this case can be separated from the new part of the equipment of this case (the new part of the equipment of this case, the new part of the equipment of this case can be separated from the new part of the equipment of this case, and the new part of the new part of the equipment of this case can be separated from the new part of the equipment of this case, and there is no possibility that the new part of the new part can be separated from the new part of the equipment of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the (a) device is the same as the registered device, and that the (a) device falls under the scope of the right of the registered device. Thus, there is an error of law that makes a decision as to the identity of the utility model in the original decision.

(3) As seen above, as long as the court below committed an unlawful act, it is clear that such an unlawful act has affected the trial decision, since the judgment of the court below as to the same scope of the right of the registered complaint of this case and whether the registered complaint of this case are identical with the registered complaint of this case. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing

2. The successor's request for intervention shall be deemed to be made;

According to the records, the successor intervenor himself/herself applies for intervention in the process of the trial after he/she is the successor to the right to the utility model right of the registered complaint of this case from the respondent. However, such application for intervention is not allowed in the trial of the court of law.

3. Therefore, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for the reversal of the original adjudication, and the case is remanded to the Appeal Trial Office, and the motion for intervention by the succeeding intervenor is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the litigation cost incurred due to the intervention is assessed against the succeeding intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)