Where a non-exclusive license has been granted to a prior user;

If the Defendant, prior to the filing of the application for design registration, manufactures and delivers the products of this case in accordance with the manufacturing drawings delivered by the company upon the request of the other company for delivery, and the production drawings delivered by the above company are made by imitateing similar foreign products, the Defendant shall be deemed to have carried on the business in good faith at the time of the application for design registration, and thus, the Defendant shall have a non-exclusive license within

Article 24 of the Design Act

Redman Co., Ltd. and one other

Gangwon-dominium

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff Red Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) an amount of KRW 1,600,000 per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the next day of the complete payment.

(2) The Defendant may not manufacture, sell or distribute the Plaintiff Company with the sign of the specifications Nos. 1 and 2 (the drawing Nos. 1 is a real surface map, and the drawing Nos. 2 indicates the floor plan, singular map, singular map, and singular chart of the same product).

(3) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Jeong-do an amount of KRW 84,800,00 and an amount of KRW 250,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

(4) Judgment that costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and declaration of provisional execution

1. On January 10, 1978, the plaintiff Jeong Jong-do registered the design of the same rubber products (one name gas pockets) as 22122 on January 10, 1978 (the application on June 29, 1977) ② on March 9, 1978, under similar title 1 (the application on July 14, 1977) No. 22122 on January 16, 1979 (the application on July 10, 1978). The above plaintiff completed the basic design registration and completed the registration of the design for the same rubber products (one name gas pockets) with its trade name from around January 10, 1978 to around 13, 198, and the defendant sold the above rubber products to the plaintiff Samsung 1 as one of the parties to the registration of the design under the similar title No. 22122 on January 16, 197, including the plaintiff Samsung 1 as one of the parties to the registration of the design right.

2. The defendant asserted that the defendant claimed damages since the defendant infringed the plaintiffs' design right, the defendant has a non-exclusive license due to prior use.

Therefore, with respect to the existence of non-exclusive license, the defendant is not able to see the following facts: Eul evidence 1 (written confirmation), Eul evidence 2-1 through 16 (each standard account statement), Eul evidence 17 through 19 (each tax invoice), Eul evidence 3 and 4 (each of the above drawings) which are admitted to be authentic by the witness's testimony, and Eul evidence 3 and 4 (each of the above drawings) which are admitted to be authentic by the witness's testimony. In light of the whole purport of oral argument, the defendant was specialized in manufacturing various rubber products with the trade name of Samsung Special rubber Industries from June 20, 1973 to 7, and he was not able to see the above facts that the defendant applied to the defendant for the design registration of Samsung special rubber Co., Ltd. from Hyundai Co., Ltd. on February 10, 1972, after being entrusted with the manufacture of rubber products affixed to containers for export from Hyundai Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the above facts that the non-party Co. 4 and the above design were delivered to the above products.

In light of the above facts, unless there are other special circumstances, the defendant is deemed to have manufactured and sold gas diskettes identical or similar to the products of this case in good faith from before the application for the design registration of the plaintiff Jeong-do was filed, and thus, within the scope of the purpose of the business, the non-exclusive license stipulated in Article 24 of the so-called Design Act is within the scope of the purpose of the business, even if the products of this case are identical or similar to the products registered by the plaintiffs, even if the products of this case are manufactured and sold by the defendant, they are based on legitimate rights,

3. Thus, the claim of this case on the premise that the plaintiffs' design right was infringed is more unfair, and thus, it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs.

Judges final confession (Presiding Judge) and Chon-hee