직무발명과 종업원의 권리에 관한 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

To define the term "service invention," one must illustrate the act of invention when the invention by the employee is included in the range of work and the actual cause for invention is included in the past and present work of employee. In essence, the legal issue of "service invention" is noted for a state of sharp, intense confrontation between the patent rights of the employer and the employee; thus, it is necessary to balance out the whole spectrum.
However, considering the acknowledgement of "service invention," the lack of compensation system and the opposition against the compensatory measures for the "service invention" taken by the companies, the legal reality for compensation in the context of "service invention" reflects its unsolved remaining task in a developing nation. Consequently, the employees tend not to ask for further rights due to the fact that the duration of career at work extends up to their retirement; in short, the present state highly requires for specific legal foundation regarding the "service invention" that is based on a broad social system.
A typical case of such injustice would be "Chun-Ji-In" litigation, which was litigated against the Samsung Electronics by the company's research staff. The lawsuit, also referred to as "compensation of twenty one thousand won for an invention by an employee that is worth of 90 trillion won," ended up not receiving its final decision because the plaintiff and the company reached a sort of agreement after the judgement was given against the plaintiff in the first trial. Another case was the lawsuit of "Istraconazol" (athlete's foot curing medicament) on Donga Pharmaceutical Company, commonly known as "compensation of 2 million won for an service invention worth of 20 trillion won." Despite of the fact that the company, accordingly to the company's provisions, must compensate for the service invention about 5 to 10 percent of the total profit made from newly invented service or product, they have not taken any type of compensatory measures for the service invention. As a result, lawsuit was filed, and Mr. Wang, a product research staff, had won the case through the first and second trial, opening up a historical chapter of the "service invention" case.
Reviewing the statistical results provided by the Ministry of Labor (in the ROK) in 2004, companies that chose to adopt a compensatory system for "service invention" were only 19% of all major companies in the Korean peninsula. Although Samsung Electronics has established a code that allowed the company to offer the designated employee for a compensation under minimum extent of 150 million won and Hyundai Motors followed the previous by offering a compensation under 50 million won, the harsh reality is that the employees who came up with an invention were paid rather with much smaller amount of compensation fee. Moreover, despite the company profit reaching its infinity, it is quite irrational to set the minimum compensation as the case with Samsung Electronics.
Although there has been partial amendment of the patent law in 2001 that "the necessary provisions for compensation on the employee's service(product) invention is established and authorized by the presidential command," the presidential segment had not been enacted by law. The bill concerning the amendment of patent law that "the company must compensate 15 percent of the total profit for the service invention" was even brought up for discussion; however, the opposition by National Workers United and major conglomerates was too stern to overcome, as they were more concerned about the decline of company profit that may be triggered by the amendment of the patent law.
A company seeks for profit, a worker does his or her job to receive income, a businessman works for the expansion of his or her own share of earnings. Applying this simple logic, in the case of the "service invention," one must be compensated for the invention made in order to raise the incentives and to build an atmosphere for creating more inventions among the eager-minded employees within the company. If such measures are taken, the company would not only be able to secure patent from the inventor by compensation which would allow them to possess the monopoly-exclusive rights, but also to make a advanced step to profit-maximization, increase of motivation among employees, advancement of technology and further development of national industry.
As possibly shown, the system of "service invention" has a very large significance in a broad context. However, the patent law in the Republic of Korea(ROK) is rather established with an emphasis on individual invention; basically, there are only two articles in the constitution that discussed the patent issue in the "service invention." Certainly, with the occasion of individual invention, the relationship of rights between the employer and the employee is specifically stated. In contrast, with the case of "service invention," it is not stated clearly nor precisely despite of its complexity. Currently, the patent law in the Republic of Korea assures the laws such as "invention-innovation law," "technology-transfer ease law," "enactment of service invention by public officials plus management and compensation code." Yet, there are numerous limitations to them. It is crucial that one needs to establish a systematic device due to the fact that there is no clear standards to clarify the relationship of rights and no legal criterion to measure the evaluation of the invention and amount of compensation for the work done by the employee. Particularly, it is highly essential that a specific organization must be formed so that the controversial disputes can be settled uniformly and swiftly, rather settling countless matters solely at court.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次
• ABSTRACT = i～iv
• 제1장 序論 = 1
• 제1절 硏究의 目的 = 1
• 제2절 硏究의 範圍 = 3
• 제3절 硏究의 方法 = 3
• 제2장 職務發明 制度의 意義 = 4
• 제1절 職務發明의 槪念 = 4
• Ⅰ. 職務發明의 意義 = 4
• Ⅱ. 制度的 趣旨와 重要性 = 5
• 1. 制度的 趣旨 = 5
• 2. 職務發明制度의 重要性 = 6
• Ⅲ. 區別槪念 = 7
• 1. 自由發明 등과의 구별 = 7
• 2. 提案制度와의 구별 = 8
• 3. 大學發明과의 구별 = 9
• 제2절 職務發明의 理念과 外國의 立法例 = 11
• Ⅰ. 職務發明의 理念 = 11
• 1. 使用者主義와 發明者主義 = 11
• 1) 使用者主義 = 11
• 2) 發明者主義 = 12
• 2. 恩惠主義와 權利主義 = 13
• 1) 恩惠主義 = 13
• 2) 權利主義 = 13
• Ⅱ. 外國의 立法例 = 13
• 1. 序言 = 13
• 2. 獨逸 = 14
• 3. 美國 = 15
• 4. 日本 = 16
• 5. 中國 = 16
• 제3절 職務發明의 法規體系 = 17
• Ⅰ. 法令 = 17
• 1. 特許法 = 17
• 2. 發明振興法 = 18
• 3. 技術移轉促進法 = 18
• 4. 公務員職務發明의處分·管理및報償등에관한規定 = 19
• 5. 기타 = 20
• Ⅱ. 條例 = 20
• 제3장 職務發明의 成立要件 = 22
• 제1절 職務發明과 自由發明 = 22
• 제2절 職務發明의 成立要件 = 23
• Ⅰ. 從業員 등이 한 發明일 것 = 23
• 1. 從業員 = 23
• 2. 法人의 任員 = 24
• 3. 公務員 = 24
• Ⅱ. 使用者 등의 業務範圍에 속하는 發明일 것 = 24
• 1. 使用者 등 = 24
• 2. 使用者의 業務範圍 = 25
• 1) 개인일 경우 = 25
• 2) 법인인 경우 = 25
• 3) 국가 또는 지방자치단체일 경우 = 26
• Ⅲ. 從業員 등의 職務에 속하는 發明일 것 = 26
• 1. 發明을 하게 된 行爲 = 26
• 2. 現在 또는 過去의 職務일 것 = 28
• 제4장 職務發明의 效果 = 29
• 제1절 使用者 등의 權利 = 29
• Ⅰ. 無償의 通常實施權 = 29
• 1. 通常實施權의 意義 = 29
• 2. 通常實施權의 性質과 範圍 = 30
• 3. 通常實施權의 移轉 = 31
• 4. 通常實施權의 侵害 = 32
• 5. 通常實施權의 制限 = 33
• Ⅱ. 豫約承繼에 의한 特許權 및 專用實施權 = 34
• 1. 特許를 받을 수 있는 權利의 承繼 = 34
• 2. 追跡條項의 問題 = 36
• 3. 公務員 職務發明 = 37
• 4. 共同發明 = 38
• 1) 공동발명에 있어서 종업원 상호간의 관계 = 38
• 2) 공동발명에 있어서 기업 상호간의 관계 = 39
• Ⅲ. 職務發明의 承繼節次 및 管理 = 40
• 1. 承繼節次 = 40
• 1) 發明의 申告 = 40
• 2) 승계여부 결정 = 40
• 3) 발명자에의 通知 = 40
• 4) 權利의 承繼 = 41
• 5) 再審請求 = 41
• 6) 出願 = 41
• 2. 職務發明의 管理 = 41
• Ⅳ. 補償金 支給義務 = 42
• 제2절 從業員 등의 權利와 義務 = 43
• Ⅰ. 特許를 받을 權利 = 43
• 1. 特許받을 權利의 槪念 = 43
• 2. 特許받을 權利의 歸屬 = 43
• 3. 特許받을 權利의 讓渡 = 44
• 1) 共同發明 = 44
• 2) 제3자에 대한 효력 = 45
• Ⅱ. 補償請求權 = 45
• 1. 補償請求權의 意義 = 45
• 2. 補償請求權의 性質 = 47
• 3. 補償額 決定에 고려하여야 할 事項 = 49
• 1) 그 발명에 의하여 사용자 등이 얻을 이익의 액 = 50
• 2) 그 발명의 완성에 사용자 등이 공헌한 정도 = 51
• 3) 기타 고려사항 = 51
• 4) 판례의 태도 = 51
• 4. 公務員 職務發明 = 52
• 5. 補償의 種類 = 53
• 1) 出願補償 = 53
• 2) 登錄補償 = 53
• 3) 實積(實施)補償 = 53
• 4) 處分補償 = 54
• 5) 出願留保 補償 = 54
• 6) 기타 = 54
• 6. 補償金의 決定 方法 = 55
• 1) 定額法 = 55
• 2) 評價點數法 (採點法) = 55
• 3) 슬라이드法 = 56
• 7. 報償金의 조정 = 56
• Ⅲ. 從業員의 義務 = 57
• 1. 申告義務 = 57
• 2. 協助義務 = 57
• 3. 秘密維持義務 = 58
• 제5장 職務發明 關聯 問題點의 檢討 = 59
• 제1절 職務發明制度의 問題點 = 59
• Ⅰ. 現行 法制度上의 問題點 = 59
• 1. 特許法의 改正 經過 = 59
• 2. 特許法 제40조 제2항의 當否 = 60
• 1) 직무발명 관련 법률 = 60
• 2) 특허법 제40조 제2항의 오류 = 61
• 3) 제40조 제2항의 의의 = 62
• 3. 特許法 施行令의 미제정 = 62
• Ⅱ. 現實的인 問題點 = 64
• 1. 직무발명 비중의 증가 = 64
• 2. 직무발명 보상제도 운영실태 = 65
• 1) 보상의 종류 = 65
• 2) 보상제도 실시이유 및 효과 = 66
• 3) 보상제도의 금액결정 방식 = 66
• 4) 미실시기업의 보상제도에 대한 의견 = 66
• 제2절 補償基準의 法制化 = 67
• Ⅰ. 最低補償基準 制定의 必要性 = 67
• Ⅱ. 補償基準 關聯 爭點事項의 檢討 = 68
• 1. 기업경영의 자율성 침해 문제 = 68
• 2. 실시수입액 및 제 경비의 산정 곤란 = 69
• 3. 기업경쟁력 약화 문제 = 69
• Ⅲ. 獨逸의 補償基準 指針 = 70
• Ⅳ. 補償基準의 立法化 = 72
• 1. 가이드 라인(Guide Line)의 設定 = 72
• 2. 正當한 補償의 試案 = 73
• 3. 特許法 施行令의 制定 = 73
• 제3절 其他 關聯 問題 = 74
• Ⅰ. 發明者의 決定 = 74
• 1. 特許發明者의 要件 = 74
• 1) 원칙적 요건 = 74
• 2) 특허청구의 범위에 기재되어 있는 발명 구성요건의 전부 또는 일부에 관하여 착상한 자 = 75
• 3) 발명의 요지 및 이 발명과 다른 유사한 발명 또는 기술과의 관계에 관하여 이해하 고 있는 자 = 75
• 2. 發明者 決定의 具體的 基準 提示 = 76
• 1) 일반적인 경우 = 76
• 2) 관리자와 발명자 = 77
• 3) 공동발명자 여부의 판단 = 77
• Ⅱ. 營業秘密과 職務發明 = 78
• 1. 營業秘密과 正當한 補償 = 78
• 2. 營業秘密의 歸屬 = 79
• 3. 營業秘密의 判斷 = 81
• Ⅲ. 自由發明에 대한 通常實施權 設定 可能性 = 82
• Ⅳ. 業務上 創作한 프로그램 = 82
• Ⅴ. 特別 仲裁機關, 法院의 設置 = 83
• 1. 專門 法院의 設置 = 83
• 2. 特別 仲裁機關의 設置 = 84
• Ⅵ. 職務發明制度 改善의 基本方向 = 85
• 제6장 結論 = 87
• 參考文獻 = 89