1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the appellate court under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's invalid patent is a global initial patent invention, thereby participating in the business of E, and deceiving the plaintiff as if the contract was concluded in favor of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff calculated the amount excessively with the defendant and concluded the first and second contracts of this case.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate for the difference between the price of the first and second contracts of this case and the appropriate price of the first and second contracts of this case.

B. According to the evidence No. 17 of the judgment, it is recognized that C, a corporation, completed the patent registration as a patent G with respect to the stoma, its manufacturing device and manufacturing method, and E, a corporation filed a petition for an invalidation trial against C, a corporation on May 3, 2018, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision invalidating the patent for the invention described in paragraphs (5) through (8) of the patent claim of the above patented invention on the ground that the inventive step cannot be recognized on July 5, 2019.

However, on May 3, 2018, around five years after the conclusion of the first and second contracts, E, a director of the Plaintiff, filed a petition for a patent invalidation trial and rendered a decision of invalidation of a patent only seven years after patent registration. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, at the time of the first and second contracts, knew that there was any ground for invalidation of the patent at the time of the first and second contracts, was known to the first and second contracts.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. The decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.