지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Recently, some companies consider Intellectual property rights as more valuable assets. They make a product protecting the Intellectual property Law and sell costly it. But generally licensors who patent Intellectual property rights is not making product. A plant of the making products are expensively. and they do not interest in making it. So License Agreement is prosper.
Rule maker did not intent the result of the Lubrizol case in 1985. But the court decided on the contrary to this. So U.S set rules for the licensor in bankruptcy in 1988 and follows Japan .But the Korea Consolidated Insolvency Act does not have any regulations as to protecting the licensee in the bankruptcy of the licensor.
Korea should not change the rule. But it is necessary to review related rules. This article deals with follows. What does the feature distinguish between License Agreement and other agreement? Which one is better between U.S system and Japan style?
Rule maker did not intent the result of the Lubrizol case in 1985. But the court decided on the contrary to this. So U.S set rules for the licensor in bankruptcy in 1988 and follows Japan .But the Korea Consolidated Insolvency Act does not have any regulations as to protecting the licensee in the bankruptcy of the licensor.
Korea should not change the rule. But it is necessary to review related rules. This article deals with follows. What does the feature distinguish between License Agreement and other agreement? Which one is better between U.S system and Japan style?
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. Lubrizol 판결과 통합도산법의 문제점
Ⅲ. 주요국의 입법례
Ⅳ. 특허실시계약의 처리문제에 대한 해결책
Ⅴ. 결론
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (4)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2004. 2. 27. 선고 2001다52759 판결
[1] 의료장비 리스계약과 관련하여 이른바 공동리스약정을 체결한 甲과 乙 사이의 법률관계가 민법상 통상의 조합과 구별되는 조합적 성격을 내포하는 특수한 계약관계에 해당한다고 한 원심 판단을 수긍한 사례.
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-366-004451170