(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.10.30 2013가단5384

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.10.30 2013가단5384

특허사용료

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff et al.’s assertion ① and the Appointed Warsaw Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) entered into a contract with D on the establishment of a patent right (patent number: E, invention name: F)’s non-exclusive license on the ownership of the Plaintiff et al., and entered into a patent use contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to receive KRW 500,000 per month from the Defendant’s fees. Since the contract was terminated by the Defendant’s failure to pay the said fees on or around December 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff et al. the amount of KRW 48,50,00 (excluding the amount of KRW 1.5 million paid from March to December 2012).

② Even if D does not have the right to represent the conclusion of the instant contract, D had been involved in the name of the land owner under the contract and the representative director’s seal imprint at the time of the instant contract, and was acting as the actual representative director, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount unpaid.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 2 as to the above argument, the patent use contract (non-exclusive license) drafted on February 10, 2012 entered the name, address, representative director G, and H of the Defendant company, and the personal seal impression of the Defendant corporation may be recognized next thereto. However, the above contract is concluded with G of the Defendant company and non-H as well.

Therefore, in order to hold the Defendant liable to pay the royalty to the Plaintiff, etc., D must be proved to have been granted the right of representation for the conclusion of the instant contract by the Defendant, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, etc. is insufficient to accept it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, the Plaintiff, etc.’s assertion based on the premise that D has the right of representation

B. The above argument by the Plaintiff et al.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2014가합43086

-부산고등법원 2016.12.08 2015나54820

-서울고등법원 2008. 10. 16. 선고 2008누14175 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가합581659

-전주지방법원군산지원 2017.12.08 2016가합11419