1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is F Co., Ltd. B (the trade name before the change: C; hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”).

(2) On April 28, 2011, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office asserted that the prior invention filed by the Plaintiff constitutes an application filed by an unentitled person, and filed a patent application for the invention of this case. (2) On April 28, 2011, the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim No. 1,” and the remainder of the claims are referred to in the same manner) submitted the cited invention 1 (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), and the cited invention 2 (patent No. 200-18247, Apr. 6, 2000) by the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (patent No. 1999-164, Nov. 15, 199); and (3) the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (patent No. 2013, Feb. 27, 2012) did not disclose the grounds for rejection.

3) On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the petition as 2012 won or 5771, and rendered a decision to revoke the said decision of refusal on February 26, 2014 on the ground that the patent application invention of this case was not denied by the cited invention 1 or 3. (4) On April 4, 2014, the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not refuse again the application for prior invention in violation of the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Patent Act (patent application filed by an unentitled person). Accordingly, the patent application of this case based on the prior invention cannot be deemed as the application filed by a legitimate right holder under Article 34 of the Patent Act. Accordingly, the first or second invention of this case is a prior invention.