A. In a case where an inventor has no legal capacity under the proviso to Article 40 of the Patent Act as a foreigner, whether such patent application constitutes Article 14(1)11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616 of December 31, 1980) and can be disposed of as non-acceptance (negative)

(b) The case holding that the revocation of rejection of a patent application cannot be deemed significantly contrary to public welfare;

A. Article 14 (1) 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616, Dec. 31, 1980) provides that "where documents are not in conformity with the method" means where documents are defective or documents are not prepared, or where documents are not prepared, are not in conformity with the method required under the law. It does not include matters concerning substantial matters, such as whether applicants or inventors have the right to obtain a patent as provided in Article 40 of the Patent Act or whether applicants are entitled to obtain a patent as provided in Article 2 (1) of the Patent Act, or whether they are not entitled to obtain a patent as provided in Article 2 (1) of the Patent Act. In the event the application document contains substantial matters, it is reasonable to allow an examiner to conduct a substantive examination by accepting them once it is accepted.

B. In the process of substantive examination, once the application of this case in question is accepted, it results in recognizing the status of a seafarer with respect to the application of a person who is not practically capable of enjoying a right, and even if the application is subject to unfair restrictions and disadvantages in subsequent application by a person with genuine legal capacity related thereto as the effect of seafarerism, such circumstance does not constitute a case where public welfare is not significantly inappropriate, and thus, it does not constitute a reason for applying Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

A. Article 40 of the Patent Act; Article 14(1)11 and (b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616, Dec. 31, 1980); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Busan District Court Decision 200Na14888 delivered on August 1, 200

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu256 delivered on July 23, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616, Dec. 31, 1980) which entered into force at the time of the disposition of this case provides that the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall not accept the application, request, sample, or other articles except as otherwise provided in the Act and subordinate statutes in any of the following cases, and provides that the above documents are inappropriate for the method of application, request, or other procedures. The phrase "where the above documents are not in conformity with the method" refers to cases where documents are not in conformity with the legal form required, such as where documents are defective or documents are not attached. It goes beyond the above formal issue, and it does not include that the applicant, inventor, or applicant, who has the right to obtain a patent as provided in Article 2(1) of the Patent Act or who is entitled to obtain a patent as provided in the above Article 2(1) of the Patent Act, and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the above matters to have an examiner examine them immediately pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act:

In the same purport, the disposition that the court below rejected the plaintiff's patent application of this case on the ground that "if the inventor of this case is not a national of the State falling under the proviso of Article 40 of the Patent Act as a member of the U.S. S. S. S. which is a non-agreement state for industrial property, the applicant is not entitled to a patent under the proviso of Article 40 of the Patent Act even if he falls under the proviso of Article 40 of the Patent Act, the applicant shall not obtain a patent under the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Patent Act" is unlawful, and there is no error of law such as

We cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below from an independent view on the requirements for acceptance of the written application for a warning.

With respect to paragraph 2:

The purport of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is that even if an administrative disposition seeking the revocation is unlawful, the revocation may not be revoked if it is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare, and the claim may be dismissed without being revoked, and even if the application in this case is against the crew principle under the Patent Act in the process of substantive examination, such as the theory of novels, and the application in this case is against the effect of the crew principle under the Patent Act, and thus, it does not constitute a ground for applying Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act just because it is against the unreasonable limitation and disadvantage of the sponsor's right. Therefore, it is not acceptable in other opinions that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle under Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)