The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition document concerning the waiver of right was interpreted.

The case reversing the judgment below's interpretation of the disposition document on the grounds that it is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, on the ground that it is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the text and text, the agreement to waive the right to the design right of the person who written the confirmation document is an agreement to give up the right to the design right where the business relationship is terminated by the agreement, and the agreement to give up the right without any consideration is very exceptional, and it shall not be interpreted as such in violation of the language and text without any special circumstance or there is no reasonable reason to waive the right, and therefore, the meaning of the text and text should be interpreted as waiver of the right to the design right where the business relationship is terminated due to the reason attributable to the person who written the confirmation, and it is reasonable to interpret that the business relationship is terminated by the agreement to give up the right to the design right of the person who written the confirmation document.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na21718, 21725 delivered on April 17, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff and the defendant formed a partnership agreement with the plaintiff around January 1, 199 on the production and sale of the water-supply apparatus using the above design on the condition that they will produce and sell the water-supply apparatus using the above design. On March of the same year, the plaintiff created the design of this case, which is the design of the water-supply apparatus, and applied for registration of the design on January 9, 191. Under the above partnership agreement, the plaintiff and the defendant produced the water-supply apparatus at the same place of business with the trade name of Hanyang Industries, and the plaintiff sold the price in full to the plaintiff at the rate of profit and loss 50:50. According to the above partnership agreement with the plaintiff on the cancellation of registration of the partnership agreement with the plaintiff at the same time as the plaintiff's two different places of business and the defendant produced the water-supply apparatus at the same time, and the defendant did not enter into a separate agreement with the plaintiff on the cancellation of registration of the partnership agreement with the defendant 1 to the extent that it did not reach an early settlement of the dispute between the plaintiff and the above defendant 2.

However, the court below's text and text of the defendant's letter of confirmation (Evidence A 1) which is a nuclear evidence of the above judgment is "I, in the case of a partnership business with respect to the water-supply term patent, maintain its validity at the same time, and, if the person in question does not refuse to do so, confirm that the person in question will waive his/her right to patent and submit documents in accordance with the waiver at the same time." The court below interpreted it as an agreement that the defendant would waive his/her right to patent, but the court below interpreted it as an agreement that the defendant would give up his/her right to patent, but the agreement that the defendant would give up his/her right without any consideration is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the above language and text, and the agreement that the defendant would give up his/her right without any consideration shall not be interpreted as against

Furthermore, examining the records of this case, if the defendant's partnership relationship is terminated to the plaintiff at the time of the above agreement, there is no special circumstance to agree to waive the defendant's share in the above design right, and even if based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, the fundamental cause of the dispute arising from the partnership relation was produced and sold separately from the partnership business of the plaintiff's product partially improved by the design of this case. As such, it cannot be seen that the defendant intended to waive the defendant's share in the above design right even if the partnership relationship is terminated without any particular reason for the defendant, and therefore, the meaning of the above language is reasonable to interpret the defendant to waive the share in the above design right in case where the partnership relationship is terminated due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the above written confirmation, which is a disposal document, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)