The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the claim for prohibition against the sale, etc. of the Plaintiff’s product based on Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

A. As to the grounds of appeal on the type of goods, 1) Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

(i) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that the act of transferring or lending goods that imitates the form of goods produced by another person is one type of unfair competition act. This is intended to prevent a person from obtaining unfair competition benefits by reproducing the form of goods developed by another and smelling them to the extent substantially identical. The “type of goods” as an object of reproduction as prescribed above refers to the generally the shape, pattern, color, or luminous appearance of the goods itself or a combination thereof. Therefore, in order to consider a person as having the form of goods subject to protection under the above provision, the consumers should have such form as well as the form of specific goods by which they can recognize the appearance of the goods as being specific. In light of social norms, if there is no consistent formation among the goods, even if an employee creates the idea, pattern, or characteristic pattern, function, etc. of the goods, it cannot be deemed as an act of unfair competition that imitates the form of goods. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s alteration of the shape and shape of the goods can not be deemed as an act of unfair competition.