1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The title of the patent invention 1) invention: B) filing date/registration date//registration number: C/D/E 3: Plaintiff 4) patent claim : The patent claim 1 of the Plaintiff 4 : (a) the 26% of the total oil and 26% of the total oil for seed collection; (b) the 30% of the total oil for seed collection; (c) the 1,500,000 SHU 03 to 1,00 SHU 03; (d) the 100,000 CU CU 0.0 to 03 to 1.5% of the lelelele-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-sle-s (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 1”).

B. The invention subject to the confirmation of this case is an invention related to the specific "high sent oil" that the plaintiff is implementing by the defendant, and its description and drawings are as shown in the attached Form.

C. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm that the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 1 (No. 2014Da1004). (2) On June 27, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on the ground that the instant invention subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of the right because it lacks the identical or equal composition with the “vegetable oil” and “ditable oil” among the composition of the instant Claim 1, and thus, does not fall under the scope of the right.

[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff 1, Gap 1, 2, 3, and all of the arguments

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of revocation of the instant trial decision has both identical or equal forms of the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, it falls under the scope of the right, and the instant trial decision, which has different conclusions, shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the right to the invention in paragraph (1) of this case

(a) If the claims within the scope of the claims are multiple components, each of them;