1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition and the parties' arguments are as follows: the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for each of the patented inventions of this case between 7, 13, and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance was extinguished by prescription, or extinguished by the principle of invalidation.

With the exception of adding “1. Basic Facts” and “a summary of the parties’ allegations” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the occurrence of the obligation to pay compensation and the above recognition standard, the Plaintiff completed the patented invention Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the patented inventions in this case”) while in office at the Defendant Company and transferred the right to obtain a patent to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the employer, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff reasonable compensation.

Article 40(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7869, Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same) that applies to the instant case provides that where an employee has had an employer succeed to the right to obtain a patent for an employee’s invention, he/she shall have the right to obtain a reasonable compensation. In determining the amount of compensation, Article 40(2) of the same Act provides that the amount of “the profit the employer would obtain” by the invention and the degree of contribution made by the employer and the employee to the completion of the invention shall

In addition, since an employer has a non-exclusive license on a patent right even if he/she did not succeed to an employee invention, the term “for an employer’s profit” refers to the profit that the employer gains by acquiring an employee’s invention beyond a non-exclusive license and by acquiring an exclusive and exclusive status to work the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da75178, Jul. 28, 201). The Defendant contests the existence of exclusive and exclusive interest on each of the patented inventions of this case.