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

(a) The plaintiff's registered design (a) 1)/ the filing date of the registered design of this case (a)/ the registration date/registration number: C/D/E2: The main contents of the design of this case and a description of drawings and specifications;

1. The registered design of this case is made of synthetic resin. 2. The substance of the design of this case is to make it possible to learn the flight principles of aircraft by controlling the ability of navigation, drilling, gravity, and quantity through the creation of a direction angle and the shape of the platform as stated in the sacity. The combination of the shape “F” with the essential elements of the creation of the design is the essential elements of the design creation;

b) [Lagin and City/Do] [Sagin and gin and gin and gin and gin and g in the direction] [Sagin and g in the direction]

B. On June 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff, the owner of the design right of the instant registered design with the Intellectual Property Tribunal; (b) the registered design of the instant case is not the design created by the Plaintiff; and (c) the design of the instant registered design is not duly succeeded to the right to obtain a design from the Defendant, and thus, was registered by the unentitled person; (d) accordingly, the registration thereof shall be invalidated in violation of Article 3(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Design Protection Act”).

The Patent Tribunal asserted to the purport that the registered design of this case was invalidated. (2) The Patent Tribunal deliberated on the defendant's above appeal 2016Da1801, and on January 31, 2017, the plaintiff did not properly succeed to the defendant's right to obtain the registration of the registered design of this case from the defendant who created the same flight equipment as the registered design of this case. Thus, the registered design of this case violates the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the former Design Protection Act and its registration should be invalidated as it was filed by the plaintiff who is an unentitled person."