1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, part of the claim for monetary payment [the defendant (the plaintiff Counterclaim plaintiff's claim for the counterclaim].

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment at the trial court. The Defendant filed a claim for payment of money based on a judicial protocol and a claim for a counterclaim for the implementation of the procedure for the transfer registration of patent rights. The first instance court accepted part of the claim and the part of the counterclaim (the claim for payment of money based on a judicial protocol and the part of the claim for the performance of the procedure for the transfer registration of patent rights).

Accordingly, among the part against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim and the part against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim, the defendant appealed against the part against the defendant as to the counterclaim, and the defendant filed an appeal against the part against the defendant as to the counterclaim, the subject of the judgment by the court is limited to the part concerning the principal claim and the counterclaim claim.

2. Each description of evidence 1 to 4, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 18, 19, 21, 48 (including the branches number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings, unless otherwise specified;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures construction materials. 2) On January 1, 1992, the Defendant dismissed the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the Defendant entered the construction department of a construction company C (hereinafter “C”) for the purpose of housing construction project, etc.; (b) from September 10, 201 to July 21, 2002, the main multi-modal technology test team of the Ministry of Construction and Technology, from July 22, 2002, and submitted a resignation certificate on May 16, 2010; and (c) without accepting the resignation certificate, the Defendant violated the internal regulations on the employee’s invention on May 31, 2010.

B. 1) The Defendant filed an application for utility model registration for a device related to the creation of an invention during the period of work in C and had the following utility model rights: (A) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are equal to or lower than the utility model right related to D; and (b) the Defendant’s objection.