카트리지재충전행위와 특허권소진

이우석(Lee, Woo-Sug) 한국재산법학회 2009 재산법연구 Vol.26 No.2

Patent Righter have the right to product, use, sell and lend the thing made by execution of Patent and he can hinder other's these behavior. But he cannot use his right, if he transfer the thing. He who received thing made by execution of Patent can use, sell, lend the thing to other without permission of Patent Righter. But wether he can repair or modify the thing or not is not clear. The object of this paper is to clear that the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place. In this paper, a judicial decision of korea, japan, american relate to this issue is enumerated and compared each other. CAFC(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) say that improvement that buying cartridge from patentee, breaking the seal of the cap and replacing the cap with shims, refilling ink is not impermissible 'reconstruction' but is behavior akin to permissible repair. Japan supreme court say that Patent Exhaustion is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community, wether the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community. To fix awareness of person who lived in a community, it is necessary to consider nature of thing made by patent, content of patent, the mode of treatment or replace of components. Korea supreme court say that the act that buy vacant printer cartridge that used up, is correspond to indirect infringement(impending infringement). And Korea supreme court say that refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge is correspond to reconstructing printer cartridge. But in this paper, refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge should not be treated reconstruction but be treated repair

공급표준계약서를 통한 콘텐츠제공자의 보호

이우석 ( Woo Sug Lee ) 영산대학교 법률연구소 2010 영산법률논총 Vol.7 No.2

온라인콘텐츠제공자와 온라인콘텐츠서비스사업자는 양질의 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 서로 협력하여야 자들이다. 그러나 현실적으로 콘텐츠제공자는 다수이며 비교적 영세한데 비하여 콘텐츠서비스사업자는 과점형태를 띠고 있기 때문에 콘텐츠서비스사업자가 콘텐츠형성자에게 부당한 거래를 강요하고 때로는 자신과 특별한 관계를 가진 자들에게 특혜를 베푸는 등으로 콘텐츠유통질서를 어지럽히고 있다. 콘텐츠산업진흥법은 양 사업자간의 불공정한 거래를 개선하기 위하여 문화체육관광부 장관에게 ‘공급표준계약서’를 제정 공포하도록 하고 있다. 이 공급표준계약서는 콘텐츠제공자의 저작권을 보호하고,활동을 방해받지 않고 다른 회사에 차별받지 않도록 하는 내용을 포함하고 있다. 이 공급표준계약서는 정보제공료를 현금으로 지불하도록 규정하고 있으며,판촉비용을 콘텐츠제공자에게 전가시키지 못하도록 하고 있는 등 콘텐츠제공자들이 당할 수 있는 불공정한 거래를 방지할 수 있는 측면이 있다. Generally, On-line Contents Provider provide digital contents for On-line Contents Service Provider and On-line Contents Service Provider provide on-line contents to it``s user. Model Contents Provide Contract is contract of On-line Contents Provider and On-line Contents Service Provider, Which is made by minister of Culture, Sports, Tourism. Because On-line Contents Provider are a great number and it``s scale is small and On-line Contents Service Provider is few and it``s scale is huge, On-line Contents Service Provider force On-line Contents Provider to unfair trade. The condition of unfair trade is as fellows. First, Copyright of contents belongs to copyright of contents to On-line Contents Service Provider. Second, On-line Contents Provider should not advertise. Third, On-line Contents Service Provider give special treatment to it``s subsidiary company or company which have special relation with it. Fourth, On-line Contents Service Provider have too much gains from On-line Contents Provider. Fifth, On-line Contents Service Provider let On-line Contents Provider defray the expenses which should bear for itself.

토지조사사업에 의한 소유권확정과 판결의 저촉

이우석 ( Woo Sug Lee ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2004 영남법학 Vol.10 No.2

종중재산의 귀속과 분배에 관한 연구

이우석(Lee Woo-Sug) 한국재산법학회 2008 재산법연구 Vol.25 No.1

The member of JongJung(Korean Clan Association) sue to distribute it"s property, and a lower court received their demand recently. In this paper, sharing of JongJung"s property should not be permitted and the reason be as fellowing First, according to the reports of supreme court of Korea, JongJung is unregistered nonprofitable association and the member of JongJung is the co-owner of it"s property. But JongJung"s property is dedicated to specific purpose, it is used only specific purpose. JongJung is different from associations administering the surface of the sea, village neighboring hillock and so on. If associations administering the surface of the sea, village neighboring hillock break up, it"s property is divided to it"s member. But If JongJung break up, it"s property should be used not for personal purpose for settled destination. Specially the property prohibiting to sell should not be divided to the member of JongJung. Because sharing JongJung"s property is unfitted the purpose of foundation of JongJung"s, it need to amend the articles of association. It is not permitted the amendment to permit sharing of JongJung"s property because it is to change real nature of the association. The judge say that JongJung"s property is trusted property. But the trusted property is not for personal benefit but for common purpose. Third, sharing JongJung"s property with it"s member is to make it"s social role lessen, to give good fortune to member who is not to participate in it"s meeting, and to harm the man who make a deal with JongJung. It seems that the man, who insist on permitting to share JongJung"s property with it"s member, think that JongJung play antisocial role in our society. But JongJung have played a importance role in working for the public good and it is necessary for JongJung to explore what it should do for our society.

상여금의 통상임금여부에 관한 소고

이우석 ( Woo Sug Lee ) 경성대학교 법학연구소 2015 경성법학 Vol.24 No.-

The research on Ordinary wage is very active after the all member participated report on Ordinary wage issued in Korea Supreme Court in 2013. In 2013, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that Regular bonuses can be included in the ordinary wage. In deciding wether it is Ordinary wage, the judgement checked the regularity, the equality, and the fixedness. Especially, In deciding the fixedness, the bonuses need not to be granted every month. it is the same opinion of the Korea supreme court report of 2012 in the same case. And in that case, The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement which the Regular bonuses is not a Ordinary wage is not effective. But A laborer can``t compensate for damages because compensation for ordinary wage is against Principle of good faith. The opinion of the Supreme Court is harshly criticized, in many sides. First the right of wage earner should not be interfered with Principle of good faith because the Act protecting right of wage earner is compulsory provisions. And The conception of this rule is too ambiguous to restrict right of wage earner. Second the enlargement of ordinary wage overburden employer to manage enterprise. Third. the agreement with laborer and employer should be esteemed. To clarify the relation of laborer and employer, the new act which makes clear concept of ordinary wage is rendered indispensably necessary.

査定에 의해 확정된 토지소유권의 성격

이우석(Lee, Woo-Sug) 한국법사학회 2007 法史學硏究 Vol.36 No.-

본고는 토지조사사업에서의 사정에 의해 확정된 소유자가 가지는 소유권이 법적으로 어떠한 의미를 가지는가를 검토하고 있다. 일반적으로 사정은 토지소유권을 창설하는 것이며 사정을 받은 자는 토지에 대한 소유권을 원시취득하는 것으로 이해하고 있다. 이러한 견해가 잘못된 것은 아니지만 사정을 받은 자 이외의 권리자에게도 권리가 인정되었으며 사정명의인이외의 권리자에 의해 사정명의인의 권리가 제한되었다. 명의수탁자로서 사정을 받은 자는 명의신탁자에 의하여 권리가 제한되어 있고, 사정이전에 설정된 제한물권은 사정 후에도 존재하며 사정명의인이 토지를 양도한 경우에는 사정명의인이외의 권리자에게 불법행위책임을 진다는 점에서 원시취득이라고 할 수 있는가에 대하여 의문을 표시하였다. 다만 사정명의인의 특별승계인은 다른 제한이 없는 완전한 소유권을 가진다는 점에서, 토지조사사업에서의 사정은 그 자체가 토지소유권을 창설하는 것은 아니지만 특별승계인에게 양도됨으로써 흠이 없는 소유권을 만들 수 있는 계기를 마련하였다고 본다. The Purpose of the Study is to discuss legal character of landownership confirmed by Project of Chosun Land Investigation. It is spoken that the person decided by assessment of Project of Chosun Land Investigation is the first owner of land and flawless landowner. But he is restricted by real landowner. If he is decided with other"s trust, he isrestricted by trustee. He is restricted by mortgagee and servitude holder before Project of Chosun Land Investigation. If he assignment his right without other righter, he should make compensation for other righter"s damages. Therefore he have an restricted right. But because the person assigned right by first owner have flawless ownership, The assessment is not a one that can make flawless and complete ownership, but the first ownershipis contribute to make flaw, complete ownership

직무발명보상에 관한 국제사법적인 문제

이우석(Lee Woo-Sug) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2011 東亞法學 Vol.- No.52

현대사회에서 기업은 다른 회사와의 경쟁에서 이기기 위하여 특허를 가지기를 원하지만 우리나라의 특허법은 자연인만이 발명을 할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 반면에 우리나라 특허법은 직무발명을 통하여 기업이 특허권을 가질 수 있도록 하고 있다. 이 경우 발명자인 종업원은 발명에 대한 권리를 잃는 대신에 사용자에게 보상을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 그렇다면 사용자가 외국에서 특허를 취득하여 이익을 취득한 경우에도 보상을 청구할 수 있는가에 대해서는 ‘국제사법의 적용대상이 되는가’ 국제사법에 따라 준거법이 지정된다면 지정국법중의 어느 법을 적용할 것인가에 대해서 검토를 요한다. 우리나라의 국제사법은 외국적 요소가 있는 법률관계에 국제사법이 적용된다고 규정하고 있다. 외국요소가 있는 법률관계중의 하나는 권리의 객체가 외국에 소재하는 경우이며, 외국의 특허권에 대한 보상문제는 외국에 소재하는 권리의 객체에 대한 양도에 관한 문제이므로 국제사법을 통한 준거법지정이 필요한 법률관계이다. 우리 국제사법에서는 외국특허권의 취득에 대한 보상에 대하여 직접적으로 규정한 규정은 없다. 지적재산권에 관한 규정인 국제사법 제24조는 특허권의 침해에 대하여 규정을 둔 것에 불과하기 때문에 이 문제에 대해서는 적용되지 않는다. 특허권의 양도에 관한 계약에 대한 규정이므로 국제사법 제26조가 적용될 소지가 있다. 이에 반하여 외국에서는 노동계약으로 보고 준거법을 지정하여야 한다는 규정을 둔 곳도 있다. 이 법률관계의 성질에 대하여 노동계약 혹은 단순계약으로 본다면 우리나라의 사용자와 우리나라의 피용자가 우리나라를 고용지로 하는 계약에서는 우리나라의 실질법이 적용된다. 우리나라의 실질법이란 어느 법을 말하는가에 대해서는 우선 우리나라의 발명진흥법을 생각할 수 있지만, 발명진흥법은 우리나라에만 적용될 것을 예정하고 만들어진 법으로 생각되어 외국에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리에 대한 보상문제에는 적용되지 않는다고 하여야 할 것이다. 특허법은 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리에 대하여 규정하고 있지만, 이 권리의 양도에 대해서는 규정하고 있지 않다. 따라서 이 권리의 양도에 대해서는 민법의 계약에 관한 법이 적용되어야 한다. In modern days, company want to have patent in order to win in competition with other company. But because patent can be gained only from person’s invention, company make employee invent. According to korea patent law, employer gains patent and he compensate for employee due to losing right of gaining patent. But wether can employee compensate for losing foreign patent is not clear. This issue is not matter of domestic law but that of international private law, because korea patent law is applied to only the relation of korea patent. korea international private law regulated that the law is applied to sphere related to foreign factors. Generally the sale of thing in foreign territory is to sphere related to foreign factors. Therefor, this issue need to apply korea international private law. There is no directive regulation related to this issue in korea international private law. Article 24 of this law is only infringement of intellectual property rights. Because this issue is concerning transfer contract of right to obtain patent from employee to employer, regulation related to contract should be applied to it. Article 26 of korea international private law is concerning to contract. According to this article, korea substantive law should be applied to the issue. Korea substantive law concerning this issue is patent law, the law to promote invention(발명진흥법), and civil law. The law to promote invention have directive regulation concerning inventor’s right to employer’s interest obtained from domestic patent stemmed from employee invention, but the law is applied only in realm of korea. Korea patent law prescribe the right to receive patent, but it did not prescribe contract to transfer the right. Therefor, inventor request compensation to employer according to korea civil law.

논문 : 기획주제(企劃主題)(WTO 규범과 회원국의 국내법) ; 지식재산권보호를 위한 국경조치

이우석 ( Woo Sug Lee ) 경성대학교 법학연구소 2011 경성법학 Vol.20 No.1

According to increasing international trade, counterfeit goods and pirated goods came from foreign nation is on the growth. Right holder can call for court to seize amd dispose these goods or demand for damages in national areas. It is better to stern from entering into Area which is protected as right than to look for relief by court. In this reasons, there is border measure in TRIPs. TRIPs request it`s members to provide border measures. Member`s obligation in TRIPs is the minimum. It`s member can provide more effective measure. WCO establish model law concerning border measures for it`s member to assist to make rule concerning border measures. Not only trade mark and copyright but also geographical indication, industrial designs, patent, layout-designs is protected in this model law. Goods in transit is belongs to goods to take border measures. The border measures is taken by decision of customs itself. The decision about wether to take border measures or not is fixed within a reasonable period of time, the reasonable period of time is not exceed 30 working days. Right holder have the right to request information about infringing goods, infringer. The model law have regulation to protect importer too. EEC and EC enact directive about border measures. Intellectual property means trade mark in COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3842/86 of 1 December 1986, trade mark and copyright in Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 Of 22 December 1994, trade mark and copyright and other intellectual property. Council Regulation(EC) No 1383/2003 Of 22 July 2003. It means that protected rights is increasing. These regulation permit customs itself to decide wether grant measures or not and to detain goods without right holder`s application. Customs decide condition of detain but cost of detain should not bear the expenses. Model law and EEC and EC regulation is not statute. but it can be model of korea border measures. Korea customs law regulate border measures to protect intellectual property from 1993. Intellectual property in that law is trade mark and copyright. Customs can prohibit only clearance of goods. This law is reformed in 2010. Other Intellectual property, besides trade mark and copyright, is protected in that law. Import, transshipment, entrance of bonded area, bonded transportation of infringing goods should be informed to right holder. But disposal of infringing goods is not permitted. That law have regulation that noncommercial and small quantity of infringing goods is not applied to border measures. In that side, border measures in korea is developed, but not effective than that of EC or WCO.

BMC Resource, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.판례연구

이우석(Lee, Woo-Sug) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2013 東亞法學 Vol.- No.61

특허권의 범위는 청구항에 의하여 정해지는데, 청구항이 다수의 구성요소로 이루어진 경우 모든 구성요소를 동일한 주체가 실시하여야만 권리의 침해로 인정될 수 있음이 원칙이다. 그러나 다수의 주체가 의도적으로 구성요소를 일부씩 실시하여 결과적으로 모든 구성요소를 실시하게 되는 경우 특허권을 침해한 것이라고 볼 수 있을 것인가라는 것이 문제된다. 최근 인터넷을 기반으로 하는 특허는 다수자가 구성요소를 실시하더라도 동일한 주체가 모든 구성요소를 실시하는 것과 동일한 효과를 달성할 수 있기 때문에 특허권의 공동침해가 논란이 될 소지가 많다. 국내에서는 많은 연구성과물이 나오고 있지만 대부분의 성과물은 미국의 판례에서 착안한 것으로 생각된다. 이러한 배경하에서 특허권의 공동침해에 대한 판례가 성립되게된 배경, 판례의 정확한 내용, 앞으로의 전망에 대한 관심이 높아질 수밖에 없다. 미국에서도 특허권의 공동침해에 대한 연방대법원의 판례는 없지만, 2007년 항소법원에서 공동침해에 대하여 중요한 기준을 제시한 BMC Resource, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.가 있다. 본고에서는 최초로 특허권의 분산실시가 위법한가를 판단하는 기준으로 ‘지시나 통제’를 제시한 BMC Resource, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.의 성립배경, 이론적 발전, 이 판례와 그 후에 제시된 판례 및 이 판례가 우리나라의 논의에 끼친 영향 등에 대하여 기술하였다. One of the most important principles of Patent Law is the all-elements rule in both Korea and U.S.A. Under the all-elements rule in patent law, the infringement of patent is occurred only case which a single reference carry out every claimed element. Computer invention -such as business model invention- is easily executed by many persons. Though many person execute Computer invention, according to all-elements rule anyone who execute Computer invention don’t bear the responsibility of infringement. But it is unreasonable that man who conspire to infringe patent and execute invention don’t hold liability. The point that is discussed with in this paper is which condition can make the responsibility in divided execution. As to this matter, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has offered important standard in BMC Resource, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., in 2007. In this papers, Background, theoretical develop and subsequent reports of the leading case is described. The grounds in the leading case will help theoretical study in this field, in korea.

미국의 온라인상 아동프라이버시보호법에 관한 연구

이우석(Woo-Sug Lee),전경기(Cheong-Ghi Chun),이근창(Keun-Chang Lee) 한국인터넷전자상거래학회 2002 인터넷전자상거래연구 Vol.2 No.1

The purpose of this report is to review Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and Rule which became effective on April 21. 2000. According to the Act and Rule, operator who wants to collect, release, disclosure children's personal information on-line, have three obligations.<br/> At first, operator of the website or online service directed to children must post a link to a notice of its information practices with regard to children on homepage or its website or online service and at each area on the website or online service where personal information is collected from children.<br/> At second, operator is required to obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, disclosure of personal information from children.<br/> At third, upon request of parent, operator should provide parents with a description of specific types or category of information, the opportunity to refuse permit the operator's further use or future online collection of personal information from child, a means of reviewing any personal information collected from the child.<br/> Parent whose children provides personal information, have the rights to review person information provided by his children.