1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, such as the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages of KRW 165,00,00 for infringement of patent rights and damages for delay on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on October 12, 201, on the ground that, inasmuch as the Defendant’s practice technology does not fall within the scope of the right without any need to comparison with the instant patented invention, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s rights under the instant patented invention is without merit, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the premise that the instant patented invention was infringed on the Plaintiff’s rights under the instant patented invention without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s claim on October 12, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance. On October 31, 2013, this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The Defendant method meets all the elements of the Plaintiff’s patented invention, and thus falls within the scope of protection of the Plaintiff’s patented invention, but it is evident that the Plaintiff’s patented invention falls under the grounds for invalidation because it is not recognized as new or non-obviousness, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on a patent right against

C. The Plaintiff appealed and appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da93968, but on March 27, 2014, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time by dismissing the appeal due to a mental failure.

November 19, 2014.