2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

(a) The registered design 1) design of this case: The articles which are the object of the registered design of this case: the date of application 2)/ the registration date/registration number: B/C/D3: The description of the design of this case (attached Form 1); the holder of the right to register: the defendant;

B. A description of a certain clothes design (attached Form 2), which is conducted by the plaintiff of the challenged design, is as follows.

C. On February 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of the right of the registered design of this case by asserting that “the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the registered design of this case because its dominant shape and shape are similar to those of the registered design of this case.” 2) On July 31, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling accepting the Defendant’s petition on the ground that “the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the registered design of this case, as it is similar to the registered design of this case.”

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' arguments and the issues of the instant case

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the scope of similarity of the design cannot be narrowly changed from the functional aspect of the ground for revocation of the instant trial decision, and thus, the scope of similarity of the design should be narrow. The Plaintiff stated that, on the first day for pleading, the instant design does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design, since it does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case, since there are apparent differences in the shape of clothes, both sides of the body of the body of the body of both bodies of item (a) and (b), and the shape of ballebs at the bottom of item (c), which can be considered as the part constituting the characteristics of the instant registered design, inasmuch as the challenged design is not entirely similar to the instant registered design, and thus, the Plaintiff did not assert that the instant registered design of this case was publicly announced by the comparative design, and thus lost its originality (as of December