207 Gohap67925 Damage (as stated)

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Woo, Attorney Mayang-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. B

2. C

[Judgment of the court below]

June 27, 2008

July 18, 2008

1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 19,390,000 and the Defendants’ aforementioned amount from August 21, 2007 to 208.

7. To the 18.18., 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants, each of the Plaintiff, 110,000,000 won, as well as from the day following the day on which the complaint was served to each of the Plaintiff.

Until the ruling of this case is rendered, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(2) the Corporation shall pay the amount of money under this subsection.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s main content is to improve the vehicle operation ability on the surface of the road by digging out the home in an appropriate form on the road that is vulnerable to an accident, such as refrating, sudden slope, etc., and increasing the shock capacity with the vehicle on the surface of the road.

B. At around 1996, the Plaintiff delegated the Defendants, a patent attorney affiliated with the D Patent Law Office, with the patent application of the instant technology. Thereafter, the lapse of the patent application of the instant technology (hereinafter “instant patent application”) is as follows.

• Patent application on October 25, 1996 (Patent Application Number - Patent Application Number - heading)

• Patent disclosure (patent disclosure number - Nos. -) on January 24, 1997

• A notice of submission of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on December 21, 1998

• Submission of an amendment, such as written submissions and specifications, February 22, 1999

• The patent ruling on May 20, 1999

• Acceptance of the defendants' patent ruling on May 21, 1999

C. The Defendants sent a patent ruling to the Plaintiff on May 26, 1999, and the patent fees of KRW 189,000 (minimum)

For the first three-year patent fees (630,000 won) less 70% reduction or exemption for an applicant (441,000 won) from the patent fees (630,000 won)

Amount] The period of payment shall be notified by August 21, 1999 (three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the patent ruling)

was.

D. However, as the plaintiff did the above payment period, the defendants were to do so to the plaintiff on September 7, 1999.

The statutory period of late payment of the patent fees for the convenience of the payment of the patent fees

Patents by February 19, 2000, the final date of February 21, 200 (six months from the date of the expiration of the period) more than two days prior to the due date;

The Defendants notified the Defendants of the transfer of the commission to the Defendants. On the other hand, the Defendants on the same day were the Plaintiff.

A claim for the total of KRW 1,513,200 as expenses incurred in filing a patent application, and the details thereof are the defendants.

Fees for administrative affairs 1,032,00 won, value-added tax 103,200 won, and official fees for the Korean Intellectual Property Office

378,000 won (the above payment shall be an amount equivalent to twice the patent fees (189,000 won) originally paid).

E. The plaintiff on February 14, 200, the statutory deadline for the late payment of patent fees: the deposit account of the defendant B around 14, 200

the Defendants remitted KRW 1,513,200 as claimed by the Defendants. The employees of Defendant B were as of February 21, 200.

A statement of payment of the daily registration fee was submitted to the Korean Intellectual Property Office with priority, but the payment is made on the following day ( February 22, 2000).

patent fees paid in 378,00 won (two times the initial patent fees) by mistake in the amount required to be paid; or

Only 189,00 won which was the initial patent fee was paid.

F. Accordingly, on February 25, 200, the Korean Intellectual Property Office made payment statement on February 25, 200 on the payment statement on the charge of patent fees.

The non-acceptance decision was made and the following notice was given to Defendant B, and the special case of this case thereafter

With respect to the application for the license, the final disposition was made as the "not paid registration fee".

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5 to 12, Eul evidence 8 and 12 (including branch numbers)

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

(1) The Defendants asserted that they did not accept the patent application of this case from the Plaintiff.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the patent application for the technology of this case

The Defendants signed and sealed as their agent, and the meaning of the notice of submission of their opinions by the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Since the Defendants’ name and seal as a proxy can also be recognized in the check, the Defendants’ name and seal:

In the patent law office to which the Defendants are affiliated, the filing of the application of this case

The patent application of this case has been accepted, regardless of whether the patent application of this case was actually conducted.

Parties are recognized as Defendants.)

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants are obliged to complete the patent application of this case by paying the full amount of patent fees to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Despite the absence of patent fees, patent registration for the technology of this case is made due to the lack of patent fees.

The plaintiff was unable to carry out the above illegal acts of the defendants, and the plaintiff of this case is entitled to do so.

The amount equivalent to the profit that can be gained by making the technology was damaged, and thus the compensation was sought.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

(1) Even if the Defendants were delegated with patent application affairs, the Defendants’ payment of patent fees shall also be made by proxy.

shall not be included in the scope of the acceptance.

(2) The Plaintiff did not notify the Defendants of the change in the address after the conclusion of the delegation contract.

J. At the end of the statutory due date for delay, the Defendants did not observe the due date for payment notified, and at the due date for delay.

The transfer of patent fees for the technology of this case was made, and the non-registration of patent for the technology of this case was negligent by the plaintiff.

It is significant due to the fact that there is no negligence for the defendants.

(3) Even if the Defendants’ tort liability is recognized, the Plaintiff’s patent application of this case

No later than 200 or 2003, the final disposition shall be paid again in 200 or 2003.

The patent registration had been known that the patent had not been registered, and three years have passed thereafter.

The extinctive prescription of the claim for damages of this case has expired.

3. Determination

A. Whether the defendants' tort liability is recognized

(1) The ultimate purpose of the patent application is to grant the patent to the applicant in respect of the invention in question.

on the other hand, a patent is created by registration of establishment and (Article 87 of the Patent Act).

A person wishing to register a patent right under Paragraph (1) shall pay patent fees (Article 1 of the Patent Act)

Article 79(1) and (3) of the Act as a patent attorney delegated by an applicant for a patent, the patent application shall be replaced by another applicant.

Korea Intellectual Property Office's decision to register is not merely an issue upon receipt of such decision, but thereafter from the applicant.

The process of paying patent fees on behalf of the Korean Intellectual Property Office is completed, and the final payment is completed.

The delegation system that shall endeavor to complete the registration of a patent on the patent register with respect to the invention claimed in the application.

(b) the obligation or duty of care shall be borne.

(2) However, according to the above basic facts, the plaintiff's delayed payment of patent fees from the defendants in advance.

The amount and the due date for the statutory period are notified and accordingly the due date for the delay of the court shall be February 2, 200.

21. Although Defendant B remitted the full amount of patent fees for late payment (378,000 won) to Defendant B, the Defendants’ employees mistake.

Only the amount equivalent to the original patent fees (189,000 won) was paid to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and such unpaid patent fees were unpaid.

In the end, the patent application of this case would be subject to the final disposition of waiver from the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The defendants' employees violate the duty of care to be appointed as a mandatory for patent application affairs.

(1) The Plaintiff suffered losses that the patent right to the instant technology was not granted to the Plaintiff

Therefore, with respect to the above illegal acts regarding employees' work execution, the defendants as employers is the plaintiff as employers.

shall be liable for joint tort.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

(1) The Defendants notify the Plaintiff of the change in the address after the conclusion of the delegation contract.

In addition, despite the Defendants’ demand for the remittance of patent fees, the due date for payment notified by the Defendants is also the same.

under the title of the Plaintiff even at the time of transfer, the patent fee was transferred at the due date for delay.

It was difficult to ascertain whether a transfer was made from the Plaintiff in any other person’s name, and further

b) the Defendants are able to pay patent fees by remitting patent fees from the due date for the statutory period to P.m.

As such, the defendants' payment of patent fees to the extent that the defendants were not sufficient to pay patent fees.

The Defendants’ negligence is large and without fault. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ negligence is so argued.

In a case where the payment of the patent fee was not made by an employee of the Defendants, the amount of the patent fee shall be paid

Because it was caused by the mistake, there are such circumstances cited by the Defendants.

Therefore, the defendants' above assertion cannot be justified because there is no negligence of the defendants.

(2) In addition, the Defendants had already been described in the instant technology around 2000 or at latest around 2003 by the Plaintiff.

The claim for damages of this case was made because it was known that the patent registration was not made.

Although the statute of limitations has already been asserted to have been expired, each of the statements in Eul Nos. 4, 6, and 7 is alone by the defendants

At the time of the assertion, the Plaintiff knew that the patent registration for the technology of this case was not made.

The Defendants did not have any other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

There is no reason for the chapter.

C. Determination on the scope of damage

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) from 1997 to 2016, where a patent registration for the instant technology was made;

up to 5.17 billion won as a royalty, and the instant case was from 2007 to 2016.

Technology value which could have been gained through the commercialization of technology is presumed to be 6.16 billion won, and 5 billion won:

As a patent registration for the technology of this case is not made, profits equivalent to the above amount shall be earned.

It asserts that it has suffered no loss.

(2) The plaintiff did not register the patent for the technology of this case. The plaintiff did not register the patent for the technology of this case 2006

A person who was known to him for the first time in the middle of the year, that is so far, until that time.

The Plaintiff was also aware of the patent application for the technology of this case, and thus, the technology of this case

because there was no possibility that the implementation contract will be concluded or commercialized;

Until 2006, no actual profit exists for the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant technology had not been registered as a patent.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s lost profit was a patent, etc.

the plaintiff's license agreement from 2007 to 2016, the expiration date of the patent term

amount equivalent to the royalty expected to be derived from the determination, and 2. The Plaintiff’s technology of this case

would have the technology of this case, if the technology of this case was promoted on the basis of a patent right.

It is reasonable to deem the amount equivalent to the technical value. - Expert - According to the written appraisal of the preparation, 1.207

The estimated royalty for the technology of this case from 2016 to 2016 shall be 17,482,00 won, and 2.

Technical Value Estimates in the event that the technology in this case was commercialized from the second half of 2008 to 2016

1,908, 000 facts are recognized.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally liable for damages equivalent to the lost profit to the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

Amount of 19,390,000 won ( = 17,482,00 won + 1,908,000 won) and a complaint filed by the plaintiff against this

From August 21, 2007 to July 18, 2008, which is the date of delivery, the Civil Act from August 21, 2007 to the date of pronouncement of the judgment in this case.

The provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall apply to 5% per annum and from the following day to the day of full payment.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition and is accepted and remaining claims.

It is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Jae-young

Judges Hah Sang-hoon

Judges Equitable

1) Patent fees, registration fees, and other fees under the Patent Act, the Utility Model Act, the Design Act, and the Trademark Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 87);

Article 7 of the Act, amended on August 27, 1999

(4) Patent fees and design registration fees shall be for the first three years within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of a decision on registration or trial.

(hereinafter referred to as "temporary payment")

(5) Patent fees, utility model registration fees (excluding the first one year) or design registration fees even after the expiration of the period under paragraph (4).

The utility model registration fee may be paid within six months after the expiration of the period. In this case, the first three-year portion (the utility model registration fee).

The amount equivalent to twice the amount of the second year and the amount of the third year) shall be paid.