(a) Object of adjudication to confirm the scope of rights;

(b) the same facts and meaning of evidence under Article 147 of the Patent Act;

A. The scope of scope of a design right is to be specifically determined in relation to the scope of effect of a registered design in relation to the subject matter.

B. The term "a identical fact" under Article 147 of the Patent Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 56 of the Design Act, refers to the identity of the cause of the claim, and includes the identity of the content of evidence, and includes addition of non-fluent evidence to the extent that the final and conclusive trial decision can be copied.

(a) Article 49(1)(b) of the Design Act; Article 56 of the Design Act; Article 147 of the Patent Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Hu28 delivered on March 28, 1978

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 297 No. 297 decided June 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below recognized that the above two photographs were taken differently from the identical machinery in preparation for the photographs of the case (Ga) No. 299, which was registered with the final trial decision rendered by the Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 299 in 1983, and the real pictures of the case (Ga) No. 1983, which were attached to the written trial decision of this case, and held that the above two photographs were unlawful because the above two photographs were identical to each other.

Article 147 of the Patent Act which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 56 of the Design Act provides that any person may not request a trial on the same facts and evidence when a trial decision on a trial or appeal under this Act becomes final and conclusive and registered, or the judgment becomes final and conclusive. The term "the same facts" refers to the identity of the facts causing the request, and the scope of the effect of the registered design right to the scope of the registered design right is specifically determined in relation to the subject matter. Thus, as long as the case at the time of the original trial and this case are to seek confirmation in relation to the packaging period for the protection of the same object, the ground for the claim is identical. The same evidence of the above provision refers to the identity of the contents of evidence, and it includes evidence which does not sufficiently exercise the power to reverse the final and conclusive trial decision before it, and it is not identical to that of the registered design act (see subparagraph (a) of the same Article) to the extent that it is identical to that of the registered design act (see subparagraph (b) of the same Article 87).

Thus, this case is a trial request based on the same facts as the result of the above prior suit and evidence, which does not conflict with the principle of res judicata. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just. Although the court below did not examine and determine the drawings of subparagraph (a) in this case, the above drawings of subparagraph (a) are evidence of the same contents as the real photographs of the prior suit, so long as the above drawings of the court below are evidence of the same contents as those of the real photographs of the prior suit, it cannot affect the result of the original trial decision.

Ultimately, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of a trial on confirmation of the scope of a right and the principle of res judicata as alleged in the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the claimant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)