A failure to render a judgment that affected the result of the trial decision, which reversed the trial decision (the case of invalidation of a utility model registration).

It was denied that there was a judgment that affected the result of the trial decision and reversed the trial decision.

Article 5 of the Utility Model Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Patent Attorney Kim Il-chul

Patent Attorney Kim-Hy, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 30 delivered on January 31, 1984 by the Appellate Trial Office No. 1982

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original trial decision.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides for the registration requirements for a utility model, provides that a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains, may not obtain a utility model registration, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), if the device can easily make the device by using the device as set forth in subparagraphs of paragraph (1) (the device as described in a device known or publicly worked in Korea or publicly before the application for utility model registration, or in a publication published domestically or overseas before the application for utility model registration).

However, according to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below rejected the claimant's claim that the utility model registration of this case is null and void since the main part of the re-improvement of the tin made up of the devices of the (registration number omitted) of the utility model registration of this case is nothing more than a device widely known and publicly worked domestically prior to the filing of the utility model registration, and the utility model registration of this case can be easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device belongs by means of the publicly known device, and the utility model registration of this case is not a publicly known device, without any deliberation and determination as to the claim that the utility model registration of this case is null and void, since the utility model registration of this case was made by the person with ordinary knowledge, and without any examination and determination as to whether the device is easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge, it is against the provisions of Article 5 (1) and (2) of the Utility Model Act.

However, according to the facts established by the court below and the records compiled, the device of the utility model registration of this case has been used as a stone embankment at the bottom of the lower court, and it has been used as a stone embankment at the bottom of the lower court, and it has been related to the repeated improvement fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoring that the string of the string of the string of the string and the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to reverse the original trial decision and remand the case to the appellate trial office.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)