1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2.

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (1) With respect to whether the Plaintiff is qualified to participate, the Plaintiff had already received a written waiver from the exclusive licensee for the patent under subparagraphs 1 through 3 at the time of filing an application for participation in the restoration project of this case.

In addition, the qualification to participate in the instant public announcement is interpreted to the effect that there is no problem in exercising the right of public law including the process of the restoration project of this case and after the completion of the restoration project of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff is qualified to participate in the restoration project of this case.

(2) According to the facts acknowledged by the first instance court prior to the determination, among the instant public notice, the part on qualification for participation is the fact that the phrase “a company possessing new technology or patent technology for which the term of validity has not yet expired with respect to the foregoing public notice, and there is no restriction on the exercise of rights to the same public notice,” and that “a company (based on the date of public notice) consenting to the agreement on technological use between our military and our service

Therefore, the existence of the Plaintiff’s qualification for participation should be determined at the time of “ October 1, 2013.” However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the patent of subparagraphs 1 through 3 owned by the Plaintiff, as of “ October 11, 2013.”

In addition, even if the plaintiff received a written waiver from the exclusive licensee prior to the public notice of this case, since the registration of exclusive license was not cancelled, subparagraphs 1 through 3 of this case.