(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단135178

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단135178

특허사용료

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,330,932 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 3, 2015 to July 13, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) granted the Defendant a non-exclusive license on technical rights that the Plaintiff holds a patent to the Defendant; and (b) concluded the instant contract with the Defendant to have the Defendant perform construction works in consideration of the design. In such cases, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a contract deposit of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff; (c) where the instant contract is destroyed due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, or the Defendant is unable to proceed with his/her business, the said contract bond was refunded from the Plaintiff; and (d) paid 5.5% of the sales that the Plaintiff calculated based on the said non-exclusive

B. On June 28, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a contract for DPSC I-BEM Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 668,809,000 for the price, based on the non-exclusive license as above.

(However, the construction cost has been reduced to 56,701,00 won as a modified contract concluded on December 23, 2013).

D. On February 2014, the Defendant continued to proceed with the instant construction project up to 50.6% on the basis of the foregoing modified contract, and the said construction contract was terminated. At around that time, the Defendant’s payment for the completion of the instant construction project was KRW 338,744,221 in total.

On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of agreement with the Defendant that there is no objection to the return of the said contract bond to the Defendant, which was paid by the Defendant to the Defendant through an order of seizure and assignment of the entire bond and agreed to transfer the bond to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, 7 through 12, 16, 17, Eul’s evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for patent user fee

A. According to the fact of recognition of the obligation to pay patent fees, the fact of recognition is examined.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나4744

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2016나49282

-수원지방법원 2018.09.13 2017나83843

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015가단26499

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합103238