Criteria for determining whether a registered utility model is a device belonging to the scope and scope of the right thereof;

In the application for registration of a registered utility model, the scope of the right to the professional engineer of the registered utility model should be examined on the basis of the scope of the request for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of the request for registration shall be specified. Furthermore, when considering the device belonging to the scope of the right of the utility model, it should be compared not only with the technical device such as the shape, structure or combination of goods that can be used for industry, but also with the actual value of the device and the aspect

Articles 8 and 29 of the Utility Model Act, Article 97 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Hu295 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989,350) 88Hu585 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1167) 89Hu1981 Decided September 11, 1990

Law Firm Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Lee Byung-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na48583 delivered on December 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of a request for registration shall be specified in an application for registration of a registered utility model, the scope of a claim for registration should be examined. Furthermore, if a device belonging to the scope of a utility model is taken into account, not only the technical device such as the shape, structure, or combination of goods that can be used for industry, but also the actual value of the device, and the aspect of its effect such as its purpose of use should be compared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Hu595, Jun. 27, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Hu179, Jan. 23, 190).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to the instant utility model by a macro-business type is the same as the upper half of the water tank and the upper half of the water tank connected to the upper part of the water pipe, and that the Plaintiff’s new installation of new water absorption equipment composed of a cross-section of the shape as it requires a small number of external side of the water pipe inside the upper part of the water pipe. The court below determined that, in the event that the vertical pipes are installed on a water pipe connected to the water pipe of plastic material, the Defendant’s new installation of new water absorption equipment and/or new water absorption equipment and/or new installation of new water absorption equipment and/or new water absorption equipment and/or new installation of new water pipes in the lower part of the water pipe, the Defendant’s new installation of new water absorption equipment and/or new water absorption equipment and/or new water absorption equipment and/or new installation of new water pipes are different within the lower part of the water pipe, thereby concentrating the lower part of the water pipe to maintain the lower part of the water pipe.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of the right of utility model right, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

2. Although there is an error of omission of judgment as to the party's assertion, if it is obvious that it would be rejected, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed as it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and according to the records and the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is not necessary to reverse the judgment of the court below since the plaintiff's utility model right of this case was produced and sold to the construction company the same contents of the utility model right of this case before November 9, 1985 (the date of application of the utility model right of this case is March 28, 1985), and it was supplied for apartment construction. Thus, the utility model right of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment as to the defendant's assertion that the utility model right of this case is invalid as a device publicly notified prior to the application, even if it was based on the certificate shown in the records. Therefore, in this case where the above assertion is rejected, the above illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment,

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

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)