(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.25 2015나1337

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.25 2015나1337

용역비

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Defendant, a patent attorney, delegated three patents (No. 10-201-0024854, No. 101-201-01-030177, No. 1011-030197, 10-20177, 10-201-030197, hereinafter “instant patent”) to the Korean Intellectual Property Office from March 201 to April 201.

During the patent application of this case, the defendant transferred all rights to the patent of this case from the non-party company in the form of investment in kind and granted 15.5% of the shares of the defendant to the non-party

On July 24, 2013, the instant patent was registered with the Defendant as the patentee on April 24, 2013, upon receiving the decision to grant a patent, and the Defendant paid the registration fee.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 12, Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings were delegated by the non-party company, but the status of the applicant was transferred to the defendant, but the status of the party to the delegation contract was transferred when the status of the applicant is transferred under commercial practice, and the defendant's acceptance of the status of the party to the delegation contract was implicitly acknowledged, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 4,632,00 won as remuneration, including the plaintiff's registration premium of KRW 3,00,000, the revised fee of KRW 12,00,000, and the agent's expenses related to the submission of the written opinion and the written amendment, the value-added tax of KRW 420,00.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the practice that the status of an applicant is transferred along with the status of a party to the delegation contract if the status of the applicant is transferred, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as impliedly by the Defendant on the acceptance of the status of a party to the delegation contract. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim will be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, because it is unfair.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016고단1484

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.08.07 2013고단2818

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.21 2016노2131

-특허법원 2018.02.02 2017허3249

-부산지방법원 2017.10.13 2016고합723