The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to Article 33 of the Utility Model Act and Article 136 (8) of the Patent Act, if a trial decision to correct a specification of a registered utility model becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the establishment of the utility model application and the utility model right has been registered in accordance with the corrected specification.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the nonobviousness of the registered complaint of this case was denied on the premise that the technical composition of the "Clock" as stated in the claim for utility model registration (No. 46320) of the defendant's registered complaint of this case (No. 46320) had been identified by the description (hereinafter referred to as "the specification before correction") as stated in the "Clock" (No. 3) of the registered complaint of this case, and on the premise of this, the nonobviousness of the registered complaint of this case was denied.

3. However, according to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the Defendant filed a petition for trial to correct the correction accompanied by a statement (Evidence No. 3-2, 2014; hereinafter “statement after correction”) that corrected the above part of the description, etc. among the detailed descriptions of the device on August 8, 2014, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the said petition for trial on October 31, 2014, and rendered a decision to correct the specification as identical with the specification after correction. It is revealed that the said trial ruling for correction was finalized on November 3, 2014, which was before the closing of the argument in the instant case.

The judgment of the court below which judged the inventive step as to the device of the technical composition, which is identified by the specification prior to correction, despite the final judgment on the admissibility of correction, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of judgment following the final judgment on the dismissal of correction, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be tried and judged again.