[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Jung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

East Asia Co., Ltd. (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Lee Lee-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 26, 2015

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da34640 Decided August 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the reasoning under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff developed the Plaintiff’s product and supplied it to the National Police Agency through the bidding of the Public Procurement Service from April 2010. In 2012, the Defendant manufactured and supplied the same Defendant’s product to the same extent as the Plaintiff’s product and shape, shape, color, luminous name, size, as well as the detailed portion on the design of the product. The Defendant’s act constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and even if not, it constitutes an unfair competition act under subparag. 1(j) of the same subparagraph (or an act infringing on other’s economic interests by using the outcome, etc. made by other person’s investment or effort for its own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order).

(2) In addition, the act of unfair competition in this case was delivered by the defendant to the National Police Agency, and the person whose business profit was infringed due to the unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is presumed to have a causal relationship with the damage, so the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the plaintiff [total quantity of the products 19,658 (Opening) x 5,232 (wons) x 12,432 (per unit price supplied by the defendant) - 7,200 won (per unit price supplied by the plaintiff)]. Accordingly, the defendant is seeking payment of KRW 100,000 among them.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion that Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act falls under item (i)

According to the above evidence, the defendant was selected as a successful bidder in the tender of fire extinguishing equipment conducted by the Public Procurement Service around September 2012. The defendant manufactured and supplied the defendant's product to the early 2013. The defendant's product has a height of about 160mm and about 85mm in width. The size of the defendant's product is almost the same as that of the plaintiff's product, and its external shape, shape, leakage, and safety pinion are almost the same. However, it is recognized that there is a little difference only in color concentration, and luminous.

However, the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 19-1 and No. 2 are as follows. ① The Public Procurement Service requested that products follow specifications and drawings as incidental conditions while announcing the tender on September 12, 2012. Since it has been supplied by the Plaintiff, the specifications and drawings of the products as requested by the Public Procurement Service were similar to those of the Plaintiff. ② The total weight and medicine volume are different in part from the bidding unit condition, but they are also consistent with the specifications of the products as requested by the Public Procurement Service, and the size of the products is also 16cm and 8.5cm in width.) The Defendant’s act of manufacturing and supplying the products of the same kind as those of the product of the public procurement agency from 00 to 100,000,0000 to 10,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act falls under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j)

Since the above provision was revised on July 30, 2013 by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which was after the defendant completed the supply to the National Police Agency on early 2013, it cannot be applied to the defendant's act committed prior to the amendment of the above provision. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Balkhal (Presiding Judge) Balkbling et al.