Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
No confirmation interest against a design the respondent does not practise
Supreme Court, Jan. 15, 2026, 2022Hu10418 (judgment)
Case name: 권리범위확인(디)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a design right holder seeks an affirmative trial to confirm that a design falls within the scope of its design right, is there confirmation interest if the respondent does not practise the design specified as the target, and may identity be found where the target design and the design the respondent practises do not appear the same from a factual viewpoint?
Holding
There is none. Even if a decision confirming that the target design falls within the scope of the design right becomes final, it affects only the target design specified by the trial applicant and has no effect on the design the respondent actually practises, so a trial request aimed at a design the respondent does not practise must be dismissed as improper for lack of confirmation interest. Identity between the two designs concerns a finding of fact on whether the respondent practises the target design, and it cannot be found where the designs do not appear the same from a factual viewpoint.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이와 같이 피심판청구인이 실시하지 않고 있는 디자인을 대상으로 한 적극적 권리범위 확인심판 청구는 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
As stated above, an affirmative request for adjudication of the scope of rights directed to a design that the respondent is not implementing lacks an interest in confirmation and is unlawful, and therefore must be dismissed on procedural grounds.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeals shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
확인대상 디자인과 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인의 동일성은, 피심판청구인이 확인대상 디자인을 실시하고 있는지 여부라는 사실 확정에 관한 것이므로, 이들 디자인이 사실적 관점에서 같다고 보이지 않는다면 그 동일성을 인정할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Identity between the design subject to confirmation and the design that the respondent is implementing concerns the establishment of the fact of whether the respondent is implementing the design subject to confirmation; therefore, if these designs do not appear to be identical from a factual perspective, their identity cannot be recognized.
Factors
- 확인대상 디자인과 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인 사이에 동일성이 인정되지 아니하면
- 그 심결은 심판청구인이 특정한 확인대상 디자인에 대하여만 효력을 미칠 뿐 실제 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인에 대하여는 아무런 효력이 없다
- 피심판청구인이 실시하지 않고 있는 디자인을 대상으로 한 적극적 권리범위 확인심판 청구는 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다
- 이들 디자인이 사실적 관점에서 같다고 보이지 않는다면 그 동일성을 인정할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• If identity between the design subject to confirmation and the design that the respondent is implementing is not recognized,
• such ruling shall take effect only with respect to the design subject to confirmation as specified by the requester for adjudication, and shall have no effect whatsoever on the design that the respondent is actually implementing
• an affirmative request for adjudication of the scope of rights directed to a design that the respondent is not implementing lacks an interest in confirmation and is unlawful, and therefore must be dismissed on procedural grounds
• if these designs do not appear to be identical from a factual perspective, their identity cannot be recognized
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1996. 9. 20. 선고 96후665 판결(공1996하, 3194)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 96Hu665 decided September 20, 1996 (Gong 1996 Ha, 3194)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1996. 9. 20. 선고 96후665 판결(공1996하, 3194)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Beyond appearing the same from a factual viewpoint, what further criteria determine whether the respondent practises the design specified in a trial request?
A later Supreme Court decision that separates confirmation interest from the identity of the two designs, or that treats a negative confirmation trial differently, would require this entry to be read again. So would a record showing what the respondent was actually practising at the time of the trial decision, or an amendment to Article 122 of the Design Protection Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Beyond appearing the same from a factual viewpoint, what further criteria determine whether the respondent practises the design specified in a trial request?” vs Independent “What degree of minor variation between the designated and practiced designs would still permit a finding of factual identity?”
The primary asks what criteria beyond factual appearance determine whether the respondent practises the specified design, while the independent asks how much minor variation still permits factual identity. These are different gaps.
이와 같이 피심판청구인이 실시하지 않고 있는 디자인을 대상으로 한 적극적 권리범위 확인심판 청구는 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Patent Court, in its judgment of 10 June 2022 (2021Heo5365), held that the design specified as the target could not be regarded as a design the plaintiff was practising at the time of the trial decision at issue, so the defendants' affirmative trial to confirm the scope of rights lacked confirmation interest and was improper. The design right holders were the defendants who filed the trial request, and the plaintiff was the party said to be practising the design, that is, the respondent in the trial.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the stated rule and the evidence lawfully taken and examined below, it held that the court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience or overstepped the limits of discretionary evaluation by failing to exercise its power to elucidate on confirmation interest or to complete the necessary inquiry. The remaining grounds of appeal were directed at the court's conditional and additional reasoning, which could not affect the outcome given the correct finding on confirmation interest, so they were not examined further and all appeals were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the design specified as the target is one the respondent was practising at the time of the trial decision.
- A case in which the target design and the design the respondent practises appear the same from a factual viewpoint, so that identity can be found.
Record verification notes
Set the design identified in the trial request against what the respondent was practising at the time of the trial decision, since that date fixes the factual question the Court treated as decisive. Look at whether the two designs appear the same from a factual viewpoint rather than only whether the target design itself falls within the scope of the design right. The decision lists Article 122 of the Design Protection Act among the provisions referred to, so read it first and check the version in force at the time of the request.
From the official text
Points at issue
피심판청구인이 실시하지 않고 있는 디자인을 대상으로 적극적 권리범위 확인심판을 청구한 경우, 확인의 이익이 있는지 여부(소극) 및 확인대상 디자인과 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인이 사실적 관점에서 같다고 보이지 않는 경우, 동일성을 인정할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether there is an interest in confirmation where an affirmative request for adjudication of the scope of rights is filed with respect to a design that the respondent is not implementing (negative), and whether identity may be recognized where the design subject to confirmation and the design that the respondent is implementing do not appear to be identical from a factual perspective (negative)
Summary of the holding
디자인권자가 확인대상 디자인이 디자인권의 권리범위에 속한다는 내용의 적극적 권리범위 확인심판을 청구한 경우, 심판청구인이 특정한 확인대상 디자인과 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인 사이에 동일성이 인정되지 아니하면, 확인대상 디자인이 디자인권의 권리범위에 속한다는 심결이 확정된다고 하더라도, 그 심결은 심판청구인이 특정한 확인대상 디자인에 대하여만 효력을 미칠 뿐 실제 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인에 대하여는 아무런 효력이 없다. 이와 같이 피심판청구인이 실시하지 않고 있는 디자인을 대상으로 한 적극적 권리범위 확인심판 청구는 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다. 확인대상 디자인과 피심판청구인이 실시하고 있는 디자인의 동일성은, 피심판청구인이 확인대상 디자인을 실시하고 있는지 여부라는 사실 확정에 관한 것이므로, 이들 디자인이 사실적 관점에서 같다고 보이지 않는다면 그 동일성을 인정할 수 없다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeals shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
디자인보호법 제122조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger