PedaP Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1488 decided May 1, 200

Tae L&A Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-in, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 20, 2018

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap541599 Decided August 13, 2015

1. Upon the application of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s successor participation in the trial, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor 17,403,225 won and 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2015 to October 11, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court and the remaining claims of the plaintiff's successor are all dismissed.

3. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff’s successor and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s successor, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim and that of application for succession participation

A. The plaintiff's purport of claim

The defendant shall not produce, use, transfer, lease, or import each product listed in the separate sheet and each half-finished product listed in the defendant's product list (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's product") and each half-finished product and each component part, or exhibit or make an offer for the purpose of transferring or leasing such product, half-finished product, and component parts.

With respect to the Plaintiff KRW 120,575,00 and KRW 47,596,774 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from January 1, 2015 to August 13, 2015, KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and KRW 72,978,226 per annum from September 17, 2015 to the date of full payment, the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 17, 2015 to the date of full payment (i.e., KRW 160,000 and KRW 47,59,000 for damages caused by patent infringement and KRW 160,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of patent infringement, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s claim for alteration of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) and KRW 2050,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of unfair Competition or tort.

B. Purport of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's motion for succession participation

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor 1,00,000 won with interest of 15% per annum from the date of the application for participation in the succession of this case to the date of full payment (the plaintiff's successor succeeded intervenor succeeded to this court).

2. Purport of appeal by the plaintiff and defendant

A. The plaintiff's purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to an additional payment order shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 72,978,226 won with 15% interest per annum from September 17, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

B. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Registration of the Plaintiff’s patented invention

On April 17, 2002 and November 19, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for the patent invention indicated and indicated in the List of the Plaintiff’s Patented Inventions (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) and each of the patented inventions indicated in the Plaintiff’s Patented Inventions (hereinafter “instant Patented Inventions”) with “instant Claim 2”, and registered as a patentee in common.

B. Details of the conclusion and implementation of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

1) On March 7, 2005 and January 2, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a domestic sales agency contract with the Defendant with the content that the Defendant would sell each part of the wall reclamation type that the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied. As to each of the above domestic sales agency contracts, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff as a security deposit, and the Plaintiff received and sold the wall reclamation type box product from the Plaintiff.

2) On July 29, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a supply agency contract with the Defendant stating that “The Defendant shall exclusively carry out the supply of goods and on-site management, etc. to the construction site of a lot lot Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “slun Construction”) that the Plaintiff agreed to deliver a lot of wall reclamation water.”

3) In addition to the instant invention, the Plaintiff was registered as a patentee of several patented inventions (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s invention”), and on January 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a non-exclusive license operation agreement with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant cooperates with each other with respect to the manufacture, sale, services, etc. of bricks reclamation box and related accessorys, and the Plaintiff shall grant the Defendant a non-exclusive license on the necessary business or patent,” and the said non-exclusive license operation agreement specifies eight patents (hereinafter referred to as “instant eight patents related to the instant case”) among the remainder of the inventions as described in the Patent related to Patents subject to Agreement on the Operation of Non-exclusive License (hereinafter referred to as “the instant patent”).

4) On May 6, 201, the Plaintiff established and registered a non-exclusive license on part of the remainder of the inventions in the Defendant’s future.

5) On May 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a security agreement with the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 200 million and delivery agency fees under the domestic sales agency contract to be paid to the Defendant by May 30, 201, but if the Plaintiff fails to pay by the above date, 12 out of the remainder shall be granted a pledge, etc. to the Defendant.” Since the Plaintiff failed to repay the remainder to the Defendant under the above security agreement, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the transfer of ownership on May 23, 2011, which became final and conclusive around that time, on December 15, 2011.

6) On June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer or acquire the right of supply stating that “the Plaintiff shall transfer to the Defendant the right to reclaim the wall for the construction of a lot.”

7) On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a trademark use agreement with the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff, with respect to which the Defendant set up a non-exclusive license on ten remaining inventions, allows the Defendant to exclusively use the Plaintiff’s trademark rights from May 1, 201 to May 30, 2027, such as the period of the said ordinary license.”

8) On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an asset transfer agreement with the Defendant’s affiliated company, stating that “The Plaintiff shall transfer tangible assets, such as the wall landfill type box, the accessory related products inventory, and the house fixtures, to Tae Ik SP Co., Ltd., Ltd., for KRW 35 million.”

9) On July 6, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a gold-type transfer contract with the Defendant and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (the trade name was changed to KSP, May 11, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “KP”), stating that “the Plaintiff shall transfer the metal type prior to the disposal of the wall surface to the Defendant and KSP, at least three million won,” in which “The Plaintiff shall transfer the metal type prior to the disposal of the wall surface to the Defendant and KSP.”

10) Around July 2011, the Defendant produced and sold the Defendant’s product from that time after receiving a set of gold boxes from the Plaintiff to that time.

C. Payment of money to the non-party 1 of the defendant representative director

From July 5, 2011 to March 5, 2014, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 6.5 million per month to Nonparty 1, the representative director of the Plaintiff, who is non-party 1 (However, 5,678,690 won as of July 5, 201, and 6 million won as of August 5, 201 and September 5, 201).

D. The plaintiff's notice of termination of a non-exclusive license granted to the defendant

On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that “The Defendant did not pay a license fee after March 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff terminated the non-exclusive license agreement on the instant invention,” and the said notification reached the Defendant on the same day.

E. The progress of the provisional disposition case against the plaintiff (hereinafter "relevant provisional disposition case")

1) On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a provisional injunction against infringement of a patent right regarding the instant invention with Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap80442, and the said court rendered a decision on June 5, 2015 to the effect that “The Defendant’s implementation of the instant product constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiff’s patent right regarding the instant invention 1, since it constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiff’s patent right regarding the instant invention, the Defendant shall not manufacture, use, transfer, lease, or import the Defendant’s product or make an offer or offer for display or lease for the purpose of transferring or leasing the product.”

2) The Defendant filed an objection against the provisional disposition with the same court No. 2015Kahap80604 on September 4, 2015, but the same court rendered a decision to authorize the said decision.

F. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s seizure and assignment order against the Defendant

On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was ordered to seize “100 million won out of the damage claim, etc., which is the subject matter of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant of the Plaintiff,” and the original copy of the decision was served on the Defendant on November 2, 2015.

G. Progress of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation of the invention of this case

1) Confirmation of invalidity of patent for the invention 1 of this case

A) On December 9, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial (Patent Tribunal No. 20155555) against the Plaintiff, the patentee, stating that “A claim 1 prior to the correction of the instant Claim 1, prior to the correction, may easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) by prior inventions, and its nonobviousness is denied.”

B) On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the contents of correction to correct the claim 1 prior to the correction of the invention No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) in order to clarify the combination relationship, such as ELI, the opening and closing text, and V, in the process of the said invalidation trial.

C) On June 30, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Defendant’s request for a trial on invalidation of registration on the ground that “The First Amendment invention of this case is not easily made by a person of ordinary skill by prior inventions, and its nonobviousness is recognized.”

D) On January 26, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said trial decision with the Patent Court Decision No. 2016No. 5668, the said court rendered a judgment revoking the said trial decision on the ground that “In combination with the opening and closing door of the instant corrective invention, “the connecting parts of the instant corrective invention, such as “flexbs,” such as the water supply tap, are combined with each connected parts at the time of internal repair, and the opening and closing is not separated, and the opening and closing door can be deducted within the scope of the instant corrective invention is commenced in the preceding invention.” Since the “occupational diameter piping method” is merely the piping structure that can be selected by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can be easily derived, the nonobviousness of the instant corrective invention is denied since it combines the preceding invention with the prior invention and the widely used art.”

E) The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu493, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 30, 2018.

2) Confirmation of invalidity of patent for the invention No. 2 of this case

A) On December 9, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (Patent Tribunal No. 2015Da55566) with the purport that “The second invention in this case is easily made by a person of ordinary skill in the technical field to which the invention pertains by prior inventions, etc., and its inventive step is denied” (Patent Tribunal No. 2015Da5556).

B) On February 12, 2016, in the process of the registration invalidation trial, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the content of correcting the claim 1 prior to the correction of the invention No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim No. 2 corrected invention”) in order to limit the shape of the interior department and clarify the combination between the compositions.

C) On June 30, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Defendant’s request for a trial on invalidation of registration on the ground that “The second amendment invention of this case is not easily made by a person of ordinary skill by prior inventions, and its nonobviousness is recognized.”

D) The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said trial decision with the Patent Court No. 2016No. 5675, and the said court rendered a judgment revoking the said trial decision on January 26, 2017 on the ground that “The elements of the instant amendment invention are initiated in prior inventions or can easily be derived by a person with ordinary skills in the art to which the invention pertains by combining them.”

E) The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu509, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 30, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 5, 9, 14, 20, 83, 84, Eul's evidence 1 through 4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, 54, 14, Byung's evidence 1, 2, and 3 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff and the successor 2)'s assertion

A. Claim on the royalty claim on the ground of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

On June 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a verbal agreement with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall grant to the Defendant a non-exclusive license on the instant invention, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,500,000 per annum to the Plaintiff at a royalty (hereinafter “instant verbal agreement”). Thereafter, the Defendant did not pay the royalty from March 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant agreement on May 21, 201, and the instant oral agreement was terminated.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid portion from March 1, 2014 to May 21, 2014 among the royalties stipulated in the instant oral agreement.

B. Claim concerning prohibition of unfair competition or tort under the Civil Act and claim for damages

The Defendant acquired the outcomes of “the technical idea of the instant invention acquired by the Plaintiff’s considerable effort and investment, technical know-how, material supply place, sales place, production know-how, business know-how, etc.” from the Plaintiff through the supply agency contract, non-exclusive license operation contract, supply right transfer contract, trademark use contract, asset transfer contract, gold transfer and takeover contract, and the instant oral agreement between the Plaintiff as above 1.b., the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff royalties as stipulated in the instant oral agreement. Since the Defendant rejected the pertinent provisional disposition, the Defendant filed a judgment against the Plaintiff to invalidate the patent of the instant invention by seeking a patent invalidation trial on the instant invention, and the Defendant’s act constitutes an act contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order and constitutes an unfair competition act or a tort under the Civil Act.

The plaintiff seeks the prohibition of unfair competition or tort under the Civil Act and the payment of damages against the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for the royalty under the agreement

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant can be ratified as entering into the instant oral agreement on June 201, taking into account the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of recognition as seen earlier and the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap’s 1 through 4, 14, 17 through 20, 39, 57, Eul’s 1 through 5, and 11 through 16:

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the royalty 17,403,225 (=the royalty 13,00,000 won (=6,500,000 won x 2 months) payable for the period from March 1, 2014 to May 21, 2014 when the Plaintiff had expressed his/her intention to terminate the instant patent agreement, and the royalty 17,403,225 (or the royalty 6,500,000 won) of the instant patent agreement, which had been executed by the Plaintiff from March 1, 2014 to May 21, 2014, to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for patent invalidation of the instant patent agreement constitutes an abuse of rights under the instant patent agreement, even if the Plaintiff had no reason to claim that the patent license agreement was void after the enforcement of the instant patent agreement, based on the fact that the Plaintiff had no reason to claim that there was an abuse of rights against the Plaintiff’s claim for patent invalidation of the instant patent agreement.

However, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff received an order of seizure and assignment as to “10 million won out of the damage claim, etc. of the lawsuit in this case against the Defendant,” and the fact that the above seizure and assignment order became final and conclusive is as seen earlier, the Defendant is liable to pay the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the above KRW 17,403,225 within the scope of KRW 100 million and damages for delay.

1) The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on domestic sales agency contracts as of March 11, 2005 and January 2, 2007, and the supply agency contracts as of July 29, 2009, concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not stipulate that the Defendant granted non-exclusive license to the Plaintiff’s invention as to the Plaintiff’s invention including the invention in this case, and only stipulates that the Defendant may sell or deliver the Plaintiff’s product. The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which granted non-exclusive license to the Plaintiff’s invention for the first time, does not stipulate the invention in this case.

The Defendant asserts that the patent related to the eight inventions of this case for which a non-exclusive license was granted in the above non-exclusive license agreement constitutes the invention using the invention of this case and the right holder of the patent using the invention could not practice the invention as a business without the permission of the right holder of the original invention. Thus, the Defendant also allowed the Defendant to practice the invention of this case under the above non-exclusive license agreement. However, the pertinent patent related to the eight inventions of this case is difficult to regard the invention of this case as the patent related to the invention of this case in relation to the invention of this case, such as the "the relationship with the invention of this case" in the attached Table (3) of the Patent Act related to the invention of this case, as the "patent related to the non-exclusive license operation agreement," and even if there is room to see that the patent of this case is related to the invention of this case

2) On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiff did not include the instant invention in the patented invention that was established and registered as a non-exclusive license in the Defendant’s future, and the instant invention does not include the security stipulated in the security transfer agreement as of May 23, 201, and the patent invention the ownership of which has been transferred in the Defendant’s future pursuant to the above security transfer agreement. From June 2, 2011 to July 6, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred or established the right to reclaim the wall against the construction on the Defendant side, the Plaintiff’s trademark right to use, the Plaintiff’s business assets, and gold punishment, but the instant invention is not included in the subject matter.

3) The invention of this case seems to be a key invention among the plaintiffs' inventions, and it seems that the plaintiff provided his patent right as above to the defendant as a security and granted the right to use trademark rights, and did not include the invention of this case in its subject matter while transferring its business assets, it appears that the plaintiff continued to own its core assets and intended to operate the invention through the defendant, etc.

4) In light of the fact that the Defendant, without going through the Plaintiff, was able to voluntarily produce the wall reclamation type of the Plaintiff’s invention from July 201, when it appears from the Plaintiff to July 201 (only until that time, the Defendant sold the Plaintiff’s product) and that the Defendant’s non-exclusive license for the remainder of the invention was created and registered in May 201, it is highly likely that the Defendant’s non-exclusive license for the instant invention was granted between May 201 and July 201.

5) The Defendant began to pay KRW 6.5 million each month from July 201, which began to produce the Defendant’s product by directly making the instant invention, to Nonparty 1. Nonparty 1 did not enter into an employment contract or delegation contract between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant, and Nonparty 1 had engaged in research and development activities according to his own judgment without attending the Defendant company.

6) Nonparty 1 provided the Defendant with some technical advice and assistance, and provided the Defendant’s corporate card, and provided the Defendant with the Defendant’s corporate card, but this degree of advice or assistance is merely a level that the patentee or the actual developer of the patented invention can provide to the non-exclusive licensee. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the said money paid by the Defendant was paid as a price for Nonparty 1’s technical advisory services, regardless of the price for the Defendant’s permission to implement the instant invention, solely on the ground that Nonparty 1 provided advice or assistance, or Nonparty 1 used the Defendant’s corporate card. Nonparty 1 expressed the nature of the money the Defendant received in conversations with Nonparty 2 on a multiple occasions on August 2014, Nonparty 2 did not give any particular advice or assistance.

7) The granting of a non-exclusive license to a patented invention without compensation is an exceptional. The license fee is also set in a non-exclusive license agreement concluded on January 5, 201 with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the remaining inventions.

8) The Plaintiff also set up a non-exclusive license on the instant invention with respect to KSP. However, KSP paid to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million per month the royalty.

B. Judgment on a claim for prohibition of unfair competition or tort under the Civil Act and claim for money

1) Relevant legal principles

In cases where a competitor uses the outcomes of considerable effort and investment for his/her own business without permission in violation of business ethics or fair competition order, thereby gaining unjust profits by taking advantage of the competitor’s efforts and investment and infringing on competitor’s legal interests worth protecting, it constitutes an act of unfair competition under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20044, Mar. 29, 2012). In addition, Article 2 subparag. 1(a) through (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, in addition to the unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, provides supplementary general provisions for “an act of unfair competition under the Civil Act, which provides for “an act of infringing on other person’s economic interests by using the outcomes, etc. made by other person’s considerable investment or effort for his/her business without permission in a manner contrary to the fair commercial practices or competition order” (Article 2 subparag. 1(k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act included the aforementioned legal principles in tort under the Civil Act in Article 2 subparag. 1(k).

The right to intellectual property is not progressive once and can continue to be used without changing the contents of the right, and it is possible for many people to use the right at the same time, and there are many cases where the right holder is unable to recover the legitimate value in the market even if the inventive invention, culture and related industry creation, considerable investment and effort are made public and made efforts. Considering such difficulties, the Copyright Act and the Patent Act provide for the right holder with exclusive rights for a certain period under certain requirements. However, free competition is an important value for which the right holder should still maintain. Intellectual property is recognized only when it is calculated and distributed through free market competition and can continue to spread. Accordingly, the right of exclusive rights of the right holder of intellectual property and the free competition in the market should be harmonized, and the legal norms that restrict competition should be careful in its interpretation. Considering such problems, Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and other provisions related to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and Article 2 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, in particular, prescribe the details and the scope of such unfair Competition Act.

Therefore, other's performance not protected by the Intellectual Property Right Act can be freely copied and used even if it has property value. However, it constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or a tort under the Civil Act only when there are special circumstances where it cannot be justified in light of fair and free competition order with respect to the reproduction or use of another's performance.

2) Determination

In this case, even if the Defendant refused to pay the royalty prescribed by the instant oral agreement after acquiring technical ideas on the instant invention through the supply agency contract, non-exclusive license operation contract, supply right transfer contract, trademark use contract, asset transfer contract, gold transfer and takeover contract, and the instant oral agreement between the Plaintiff as above 1.B., the Defendant merely assumes the Defendant’s obligation to pay the royalty to the Plaintiff, etc. as stipulated under the instant oral agreement, and solely on such circumstance, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s performance of the Defendant’s product as an act contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant's losing in the relevant provisional disposition case and proceeding with the trial and litigation that asserted the invalidation of a patent of the invention of this case constitutes an act contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order.

Therefore, the defendant's above act alleged by the plaintiff cannot be seen as an unfair competition act or a tort under the Civil Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for prohibition and compensation for damages is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is clear in the record that the plaintiff's successor did not pay to the plaintiff within KRW 100 million, which is the amount of KRW 17,403,225 of the oral agreement of this case that the plaintiff succeeded to the plaintiff within the limit of KRW 17,403,225, and after the due date, it is reasonable to dispute the defendant's existence or scope of the obligation to pay damages from January 1, 2015 to October 11, 2018, and 15% per annum under the Civil Act (the date of closing the argument of the first instance court of this case is before September 30, 2015) under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2653, Sep. 25, 2015). The plaintiff is not obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the legal interest rate of Article 3 (1) of the former Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in the trial (the judgment of the court of first instance, which judged as to the plaintiff's claim before the change, became null and void) shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim added in the trial court for the reasons within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Hong-pon (Presiding Judge) Kim Man-Jon

1) The content of the Plaintiff’s act of unfair competition against the Defendant includes the act before and after the enforcement of the Act, which was amended by Act No. 15580, Apr. 17, 2018, and subsequently amended by the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and thus, it refers to the current law for convenience.

2) Although the Plaintiff’s successor did not directly assert the cause of the claim or change the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s successor did not make such assertion as alleged by the Plaintiff.