beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,400,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 11, 2013 to March 4, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established under the U.S. Indiana State Act for the purpose of manufacturing and applying for sales business of paper-debrising, paper-debrising, bills, and other instruments that are classified into instruments. The Defendant is a major shareholder of a stock company B established for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling financial automation devices (hereinafter “B”) and a person who served as a representative director until January 11, 2013.
B. The Plaintiff’s patent infringement lawsuit 1) B against the Plaintiff’s patent infringement lawsuit was exported to the United States since 2003, and the Plaintiff’s patent infringement lawsuit 2004 is deemed to be the Mamro-Asian Tro-Inde Corporation (hereinafter “Amro-Inde”), a U.S. corporation in 2004.
(2) On September 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation, etc. against B and the Plaintiff for damages on the ground that the ground that the Plaintiff’s ground-pulmonary coefficient was infringed upon the Plaintiff’s patent right. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation, etc. against B and the Plaintiff on the ground that the ground that the ground-pulmonary coefficient of B sold in the United States was infringed on the Plaintiff’s patent right. The Plaintiff jointly and severally filed a lawsuit seeking compensation, etc. on October 30, 2009, “B and the Plaintiff were jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages due to patent infringement, USD 12,962,70.70.47 ($ 11,898,279, USD 97,508, USD 869, USD 47, USD 976, USD 137, etc. prior to the judgment of patent infringement, and the interest thereon were paid.”
Accordingly, B appealed to the Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, and the above Court of Appeals rendered a judgment on May 25, 2012 to the effect that the above part of the damages was maintained, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it did not appeal by B.
3 The plaintiff filed against B on September 14, 2012 with the Seoul Central District Court.