A public official's opinion is different from that of the Supreme Court's decision, and a public official's fault under the State Compensation Act is different from that of the Supreme Court's decision on the complicated interpretation that can be understood as a complex because there is no opinion attributable to the theory or case law.

In the event that the interpretation of the statutes is difficult to be complicated and the theories and precedents are not uniform, if a public official takes a prudent and handles one of them, the interpretation is eventually illegal, the negligence of the public official under the State Compensation Act cannot be recognized even if the interpretation was illegal.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Attorney Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant.

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na986 delivered on November 15, 1972

The part of the original judgment against Defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(A) As to the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below cited part of the claim and judged as follows. In other words, the Director General of the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall establish the basis for revoking the above patent after hearing the above case, and therefore, Articles 45 (1) and 45-2 (where the patent is non-working for three or more years without good cause after obtaining a patent, the Director General of the Korean Intellectual Property Office may cancel the patent or grant a compulsory license) of the Patent Act effective from April 5, 1963 and Article 45-2 (where the patent is non-working for three or more years after obtaining a patent) of the Patent Act shall not be erroneous, such as cancelling the patent or revoking the patent by applying the above provision retroactively to the above case, even though he did not commit an error, for the reason that the patent was non-working for three or more years counting from April 23, 1959 to December 12, 1963, it is reasonable to first grant the above patent license, unless there are special circumstances for three or more years since then the cancellation of the above decision of 96.

In general, whether a public official was unaware of relevant laws and regulations in the performance of his/her duties, and if he/she did not have necessary knowledge, it may not be an issue under the State Compensation Act due to his/her intentional act or negligence as a breach of duty of a public official with respect to the result of dealing with such cause. However, in cases where the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes is difficult to be complicatedly interpreted, and there is no doubt due to lack of significance, it is difficult for the public official to find a reasonable ground, and the Supreme Court's interpretation that a public official took one of the reasonable grounds is not the same as that of the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, it is difficult to expect an average public official to faithfully execute the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In such cases, it is difficult to expect that the result was not a legal ground for imposing liability, and thus, it cannot be said that the public official's negligence has been taken unless there are any special circumstances.

In this case, the decision of the Supreme Court is based on the opinion that the former law should be applied to the revocation of a patent at the original time, and the decision of the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the previous law. However, the decision of the Seoul High Court which dealt with the same case was found to be unlawful as a result of the original decision of the Seoul High Court, but it can be seen that the above interpretation of the law was difficult and that the new law can be applied again to the extent that it is difficult, and that the above decision of the Seoul High Court did not go against the above legal principles as to the above interpretation of the State Compensation Act, because the above decision of the Supreme Court did not go beyond three members and did not go beyond a half of the previous law, and the above patent postmaster did not go beyond the above decision of the court below as to the reason that it did not go against the above legal principles as to the interpretation of the new law and the reason why it did not go against the duty of the public official under the State Compensation Act.

(B) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and their agents.

In accordance with the above decision as to the defendant's appeal, there is no need to conclude that the argument on the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. Accordingly, the part on the judgment in the original judgment in the lawsuit is justified in its conclusion and acceptable, and it is not the way to accept it. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)