2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Defendant’s registered design (Nos. 2 and 3 (1) / the filing date of an application: The name of a product on August 19, 2014//her name on March 16, 2015: The name of a product: (3) drawings (attached Form 1) for work use.

B. (1) Prior Designs (1) 1 (No. 4) (a): Internet shopping mall (htp://it contribution3.C.co. k/DetailV.laspp item item: No. A =615627692 & 603=V2) (No. 11. 2013.) item (b): The name of the article: photograph of the place of work (c) [Attachment 2].

(2) The number of prior designs 2 (A)(5)(a)/ the filing date/public notice date: The name of the product on August 29, 2013, No. 1383763////her on August 9, 2014: The drawings of work auxiliary equipment (a) to protect knenenenee and reduce knenenee frighten frighten: [Attachment 2](b).

(3) Prior Design 3 (Evidence 6) (A): Internet shopping mall (htp:/www.11stst.co.co., w.cc. /Scelebbbbbbbbbbbbbbbc15a : Internet shopping mall (http) /www.tmall method = getable 24747027 & N00bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb09.83.209.

C. (1) On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (2015Da5745) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, stating that “The registered design of the instant case is easily created by the combinations of 1 and 2 of the prior designs or by the combinations of 1 and 3 of the prior designs, and constitutes Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act.”

(2) On July 11, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial on the ground that “the registered design of this case is not a design easily created by prior designs 1 through 3, because it is not a design that can be easily created by prior designs due to the difference between the characteristics of the registered design and the prior designs.”