2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for design registration with respect to the design of an electronic device storage box (hereinafter “instant Plaintiff’s product”), and completed the design registration with registration number B on November 6, 2013.

B. On October 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) awarded a contract for the information system development service project at the Office of Education of Sejong Special Self-Governing City; and (b) produced and supplied mobile device charging boxes (hereinafter “instant Defendant products”).

C. The subcontractor C filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial to confirm the scope of rights (No. 2014Da837) against the Plaintiff by asserting that the design of the instant product does not correspond to the registered design of the instant product and does not fall under the scope of the right. On August 1, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the said trial request.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Patent Court seeking the revocation of the above decision (No. 2014Heo6063). However, the Patent Court rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 21, 2014, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including those with a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s production and delivery of the instant product by imitateing the product form or design inside the open letter of the alteration of the Plaintiff’s product constitutes “the act of imitateing the product form” under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) or “other unfair competition acts” under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the same Act, and ② infringing the Plaintiff’s registered design right, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages

3. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act concerning the assertion based on the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.