The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the provisions of Articles 126 and 131 of the Patent Act, which are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 53 of the Design Act, the structure of an appeal under the Design Act shall be deemed to have adopted the principle of prompt trial, and it shall not be deemed to have adopted the principle of ex post facto examination (see Supreme Court Decision 70Hu18, Nov. 24, 1970). However, even if the first appeal decision is unfair due to other reasons, if the conclusion is justifiable, the appellate court shall maintain the first appeal decision and dismiss the appeal request (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu56, Sept. 11, 1984).

According to the records, since the first trial decision is identical with or similar to the quotation of the decision by the Speaker of this case, and the Speaker of this case (A) has already been announced prior to the application of the Speaker of this case (registration number omitted) (hereinafter referred to as the "registered design"), and the second Speaker of this case has judged that it does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered design. On the other hand, since the Speaker of this case and the registered design are different from each other, the Speaker of the court below decided that the first trial decision does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered design and dismissed the appeal by maintaining the first trial decision. The above decision of the court below is just, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of the grounds for the first trial decision by recognizing the fact that the first trial decision was opposed to the first trial decision, and thus the first trial decision should be reversed first and remanded to the original trial, it is not acceptable to accept the theory that the first trial decision should be remanded.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the court below alleged that the appellant's appeal's ground for the public notice of the whole of the Speaker and the registered design on July 24, 1970 on the ground that the appellant's appeal's ground for the public notice of the Speaker and the registered design should be recognized until the adjudication on invalidation becomes final and conclusive, but the decision of the court below did not follow the above case's decision and the opposing decision was unlawful. The above decision of the appellant's appeal's ground for rejection under the premise that the above case's decision is valid since it was discarded by the en banc Decision 81Hu56 delivered on July 26, 1983, it is merely an explanation of the appellant's argument regardless of the merits, and the court below's decision is not a different Speaker, and at the same time, it cannot be deemed that the Speaker and the registered design are the same or similar one with the Speaker and the registered design, supporting the reasons for the first decision, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the lawsuit's theory.

3. As to the third ground for appeal:

The theory of the lawsuit argues that (a) the design of this case was not included in the scope of the right of the registered design without examining whether the design of this case (a) is using the registered design right, but considering the record, it cannot be said that there was an error of incomplete deliberation as to the decision of the court below, and therefore, it is groundless.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)