1. The defendant,

(a)the manufacture, transfer, lease, export, import, or transfer of the goods listed in Appendix 1;

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1) The Plaintiff is a juristic person established in Japan around 1929 to carry on the manufacture and sale of goods, such as fruit, call, etc. (2) The Defendant is a domestic juristic person that completed the registration of incorporation on March 24, 1967 for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, selling and distributing food.

B. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for design registration with a priority on January 9, 2013, with respect to the shape of the packaging box of the fruit products added by the Seocho-gu head on February 28, 2013, within the Republic of Korea, and received the registration of the following design rights (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s design”).

The filing date/application number: The filing date/registration number of the first priority claim on February 28, 2013 / 30-2013-01065: the date of registration/registration on January 9, 2013: the product subject to the design registration on April 11, 2013 / 30-0689628: The design drawings of packing boxes: The same shall apply to the drawings stated in attached Form 2.

C. On September 12, 2012, the current status of the Plaintiff’s design execution of the instant design published the time of the delivery of the instant product under the name of “batond” (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s product”) using package funeral services that embodyed the Plaintiff’s design, and sells it from October 24, 2012 to the Japanese Austria, etc.

Around October 14, 2014, the Defendant manufactured and sold in the Republic of Korea any fruit product under the name of “Deduction” using a package box containing a person who packages the design as shown in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “Defendant’s Product”).

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the part of the Plaintiff’s claim based on the Design Protection Act, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s design by stealing the Plaintiff’s design in this case and manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s working product, the Plaintiff was prohibited from infringement of the design right, such as the Plaintiff’s written claim against the Defendant.