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

A. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant on March 25, 2016, and the Plaintiff rendered a trial ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”) on the ground that “the devices described in paragraphs 1 through 3 (hereinafter “claim 1”) in the instant registered petition are easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) from 2 and 3 in the prior petition, and thus, the nonobviousness is denied.”

B. Name of the instant registered device (Evidence 3) 1: B; a single surface generally used as floor board from the steel structure to a bridge or wave pattern; Spain refers to the distance used for maintaining a certain interval. 2) Date of application (priority date)/registration date/registration number: C (First of all, October 27, 2014): Claim No. 1); Claim No. 1 (Defendant 4) ; Claim No. 2; Claim No. 5 of the Spain; Claim No. 55 of the Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s Spain’s vegetable distance (hereinafter referred to as “consect 1”); the Spain’s Spain’s vegetation’s vegetable distance at the same time and at the same time, the vegetation’s vegeMs of the vegeM inserted and the veges of the vege.