Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Employee invention compensation as a statutory claim and when its limitation begins
Supreme Court, June 24, 2026, 2025Da219742 (judgment)
Case name: 직무발명보상금청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an employer's employment rules specify the form of compensation, criteria for setting its amount, payment method and payment procedure for an employee invention, does the claim under Article 15(1) of the former Invention Promotion Act remain a statutory claim whose ten-year limitation runs only from the time the payment falls due, and must the whole judgment below be reversed where a subsidiary claim under those rules was alternatively joined and the appeal succeeds on the statutory claim?
Holding
It remains a statutory claim. The employee invention compensation claim is a statutory claim recognised as a matter of policy to encourage inventions, and where an agreement or employment rules specify the form of compensation and criteria for setting its amount, they are, absent special circumstances, read as concretising or supplementing that statutory claim, without changing its legal nature. The ten-year limitation generally runs from the point at which the employer succeeds to the right to a patent or to the patent right, but where the employment rules fix a payment time by regulating the payment conditions or procedure, the employee may, absent special circumstances, exercise the claim at that time. Because the principal and subsidiary claims were joined alternatively and the employee appealed against the whole judgment, the whole judgment had to be reversed even though the subsidiary claim was correctly rejected.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
다만 직무발명에 관한 근무규정 등에서 직무발명 보상금의 지급요건이나 지급절차 등을 규정하는 방식으로 지급시기를 정하고 있는 경우에는 종업원 등은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그와 같이 정해진 지급시기에 직무발명 보상금청구권을 행사할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Provided, however, that where the rules of employment, etc. concerning service inventions determine the time of payment by prescribing the requirements or procedures for payment of service invention compensation and the like, the employee, etc. may, absent special circumstances, exercise the claim to service invention compensation at the time of payment so determined.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
종업원 등의 직무발명 보상금청구권은 직무발명에 대한 정당한 보상을 보장함으로써 직무발명을 장려하기 위하여 정책적으로 인정되는 법정채권이다.
Unofficial English translation
The claim of an employee, etc. to service invention compensation is a statutory claim recognized as a matter of policy in order to encourage service inventions by securing just compensation for a service invention.
Factors
- 발명진흥법이 규정하는 ‘정당한 보상’을 위하여 계약이나 근무규정에 보상형태와 보상액을 결정하기 위한 기준, 지급방법 등이 명시된 경우
- 그로 인해 보상금청구권의 법적 성질이 달라지지 않는다
- 근무규정 등에서 직무발명 보상금의 지급요건이나 지급절차 등을 규정하는 방식으로 지급시기를 정하고 있는 경우에는
- 성질상 선택적 관계에 있는 청구를 당사자가 심판의 순위를 붙여 청구한다는 취지에서 예비적으로 병합한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다
Unofficial English translation
• Where the standards for determining the form and amount of compensation, the method of payment, and the like are specified in a contract or the rules of employment for the purpose of the "just compensation" provided for in the Invention Promotion Act
• The legal nature of the claim to compensation is not thereby changed
• Where the rules of employment, etc. determine the time of payment by prescribing the requirements or procedures for payment of service invention compensation and the like
• The same applies where a party, with the intention of asserting claims that stand in an alternative relationship by designating the order of adjudication, joins them provisionally
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 5. 30. 선고 2021다258463 판결(공2024하, 973)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2021Da258463 decided May 30, 2024 (Gong 2024 Ha, 973)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2011. 7. 28. 선고 2009다75178 판결(공2011하, 1732), 대법원 2024. 5. 30. 선고 2021다258463 판결(공2024하, 973) / [3] 대법원 1993. 12. 21. 선고 92다46226 전원합의체 판결(공1994상, 484), 대법원 2014. 12. 24. 선고 2012다35675 판결, 대법원 2025. 5. 15. 선고 2023다306014 판결(공2025하, 1043)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would displace the reading that the employment rules merely concretise the statutory claim, or would prevent the employee from exercising the claim at the fixed payment time?
The Patent Court's judgment on remand, applying the ten-year limitation from the fixed payment time, will show how the payment condition and the committee's deliberation are dated in this file. A later decision reading an employer's compensation rules as creating a separate contractual claim, or an amendment to Article 15 of the Invention Promotion Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 30 October 2025 (2023Na10150), dismissed the principal claim under Article 15(1) of the former Invention Promotion Act as extinguished by limitation before the suit was filed. It held that the defendant's 2006 compensation rules and deliberation rules, though they set the form of compensation, criteria for the amount, the payment method and the deliberation procedure, did not of themselves amount to a fixing of the payment time or a legal obstacle to exercising the claim, so the claims were due on 26 July 2007 and 4 October 2007 without a fixed time for performance. It also dismissed the subsidiary claim under those rules, reading them as aimed at enabling employees to exercise the statutory claim rationally rather than creating a separate new monetary claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendant's rules fixed an open-ended payment time, because each type of compensation became payable when a stated condition occurred and after the deliberation and resolution of the compensation committee, so the employee could exercise the claim when that time came, absent special circumstances. The court below had therefore misapprehended the law on when the limitation on an employee invention compensation claim begins. It found no error in the rejection of the subsidiary claim, but because the two claims were joined alternatively and the employee had appealed against the entire judgment, the entire judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the Patent Court, the remaining grounds of appeal not being dealt with.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the employment rules do not fix a payment time by regulating the payment conditions or procedure, so that the limitation runs from the succession to the patent right.
- A case in which special circumstances prevent the employee from exercising the claim at the fixed payment time.
- A case in which no claim under the employer's compensation rules was alternatively or subsidiarily joined to the statutory claim, so that the whole judgment need not be reversed together.
Record verification notes
Set the employment rules against the date on which the employer succeeded to the right to a patent or to the patent right, and identify which payment condition was meant to govern, since the limitation question turns on whether a payment time was fixed. Check whether the compensation committee's deliberation and resolution is itself a condition of payment. Then confirm how the claims were joined below and whether the appeal covered the whole judgment, because the scope of reversal follows that record rather than the merits of one claim.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 직무발명 보상금청구권의 법적 성질(=법정채권) 및 사용자 등의 근무규정 등에 직무발명에 대한 보상형태와 보상액을 결정하기 위한 기준, 지급방법 등이 명시된 경우, 발명진흥법에 따른 법정채권과는 별도의 약정채권으로 직무발명 보상금청구권이 발생하는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 직무발명 보상금청구권의 소멸시효 기간(=10년) 및 직무발명에 관한 근무규정 등에서 지급요건이나 지급절차 등을 규정하는 방식으로 지급시기를 정하고 있는 경우, 종업원 등은 그 지급시기가 도래하여야 직무발명 보상금청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [3] 선택적으로 병합된 청구에 대하여 상고심법원이 선택적 청구 중 어느 하나의 청구에 관한 상고가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우, 이를 전부 파기하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이러한 법리는 성질상 선택적 관계에 있는 청구를 당사자가 심판의 순위를 붙여 청구한다는 취지에서 예비적으로 병합한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a claim to service invention compensation arises as a contractual claim, separate from the statutory claim under the Invention Promotion Act, when the employer, etc. specify in the rules of employment, etc. the criteria for determining the form and amount of compensation for a service invention, the method of payment, and the like (negative, in principle) [2] Whether the extinctive prescription period for a claim to service invention compensation is 10 years, and where the rules of employment, etc. concerning service inventions determine the time of payment by prescribing the requirements or procedures for payment and the like, whether an employee, etc. may exercise the claim to service invention compensation only when that time of payment arrives (affirmative, in principle) [3] Where the parties have joined claims alternatively, and the court of final appeal finds the final appeal well-founded with respect to one of the alternative claims, whether the judgment must be reversed in its entirety (affirmative), and whether the same legal principle applies where a party, with the intention of asserting claims that stand in an alternative relationship by designating the order of adjudication, joins them provisionally (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] "직무발명"이란 종업원, 법인의 임원 또는 공무원(이하 ‘종업원 등’이라 한다)이 그 직무에 관하여 발명한 것이 성질상 사용자·법인 또는 국가나 지방자치단체(이하 ‘사용자 등’이라 한다)의 업무범위에 속하고, 그 발명을 하게 된 행위가 종업원 등의 현재 또는 과거의 직무에 속하는 발명을 말한다(발명진흥법 제2조 제2호). 종업원 등은 직무발명에 대하여 특허, 실용신안등록, 디자인등록을 받을 수 있는 권리나 특허권, 실용신안권, 디자인권을 계약이나 근무규정에 따라 사용자 등에게 승계하게 하거나 전용실시권을 설정한 경우에는 정당한 보상을 받을 권리를 가진다(발명진흥법 제15조 제1항). 종업원 등의 직무발명 보상금청구권은 직무발명에 대한 정당한 보상을 보장함으로써 직무발명을 장려하기 위하여 정책적으로 인정되는 법정채권이다. 발명진흥법이 규정하는 ‘정당한 보상’을 위하여 계약이나 근무규정에 보상형태와 보상액을 결정하기 위한 기준, 지급방법 등이 명시된 경우, 이는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 발명진흥법에 따른 종업원 등의 직무발명 보상금청구권을 구체화하거나 보충하기 위한 것으로 해석함이 타당하고, 그로 인해 보상금청구권의 법적 성질이 달라지지 않는다. [2] 종업원 등의 직무발명 보상금청구권은 법정채권으로 10년간 행사하지 않으면 소멸시효가 완성하고, 일반적으로 사용자 등이 직무발명에 대한 특허 등을 받을 권리나 특허권 등을 종업원 등으로부터 승계한 시점에 발생한다. 다만 직무발명에 관한 근무규정 등에서 직무발명 보상금의 지급요건이나 지급절차 등을 규정하는 방식으로 지급시기를 정하고 있는 경우에는 종업원 등은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그와 같이 정해진 지급시기에 직무발명 보상금청구권을 행사할 수 있다. [3] 선택적으로 병합된 청구에 대하여 상고심법원이 선택적 청구 중 어느 하나의 청구에 관한 상고가 이유 있다고 인정할 때에는 이를 전부 파기하여야 한다. 그리고 이러한 법리는 성질상 선택적 관계에 있는 청구를 당사자가 심판의 순위를 붙여 청구한다는 취지에서 예비적으로 병합한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 발명진흥법 제2조 제2호, 제15조 제1항, 제2항 / [2] 발명진흥법 제2조 제2호, 제15조 제1항, 제2항, 민법 제162조 제1항, 제166조 제1항 / [3] 민사소송법 제253조, 제436조
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