A. The case holding that there was an error of omission of judgment in spite of the claimant's assertion that he is not an interested person and presented reference materials with proof that he is not entitled to request for judgment

(b)An administrative patent judge who has a cause of exclusion shall be prohibited from performing all the functions relating to the case naturally in accordance with the penalty rate;

A. Even though the claimant alleged that he/she was not an interested party, and submitted reference materials with its proof that he/she did not have the right to request a trial, the ground of appeal is the ground of appeal.

(b) An administrative patent judge who has a ground for exclusion shall not perform his/her duties in the same Section as a matter of law with regard to the case;

Article 136 of the Patent Act

Most Corer Company

Korea Wheeled Industrial Company

Patent Country

Having destroyed the original trial decision;

The case shall be remanded to the Appeal Board of the Patent State.

The first ground for appeal by the appellant is examined as follows:

In the second supplement of the case of appeal on October 4, 1967 (Chapter 185), the representative patent attorney Kim Jong-il, the respondent, submitted a second supplement of the case of appeal on acceptance of a patent (patent registration number omitted) to 1965 and the decision of invalidation has become final and conclusive, so the above (patent registration number omitted) does not exist from the beginning pursuant to Article 121(1) of the former Patent Act or Article 62(1) of the Patent Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 28 of the current Utility Model Act, and there is no reason for the claimant to become an interested party to this case (patent registration number omitted) and to prove that the claimant did not have the right to request a trial on invalidation of the utility model registration of this case, even though the claimant submitted subparagraph 8 (Patent No. 199) to the court below, the decision of the court below was rejected and the decision of the court below cannot be judged on the premise that the above (patent registration number omitted), which affected the result of the decision. Therefore, it has merit.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 164 subparagraph 6 of the former Patent Act and Article 99 subparagraph 6 of the Patent Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 28 of the Utility Model Act, Article 164 of the former Patent Act, and Article 28 of the Patent Act, an administrative patent judge shall be excluded from participating in a case as an examiner, an administrative patent judge, or a judge. An administrative patent judge who has a ground for exclusion shall not act as a matter of law in connection with the case without a request for exclusion or exclusion trial, and the administrative patent judge shall not act as a matter of law in the course of performing his/her duties, and the non-party shall be found to be unlawful

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be destroyed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court of the Korean Intellectual Property Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu