1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s registered design (Evidence A2 and 3) 1)/ Date of application/registration number: The product subject to design on May 3, 2013//No. 711474(2)/ No. 71474, Oct. 2/ 2013: A description of the main contents of the design on the direct property.

1. The material is poly Estez. 2. The pattern pattern of polyszin formed on the surface of this product is repeated in the direction of the upper, lower, lower, left, and suspher. 3. The material is a rectangular site used in tetrary, propagation, and chair. 4. [Tindo 1] The material extends the surface of the rectangular site, which is the material. The combination of the shape of “Tink” and the shape of “Tink”, which is the essential part of the design creation, is the creative point of the design.

m. 4 Do surface altitude 1 also referenced on the side surface of the Do;

B. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of the instant case (Evidence 1) against the Defendant, the owner of the design right of the instant registered design, which was made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal under the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 23, 2015, cannot be deemed as a design that causes an aesthetic impression through visual view because the dominant characteristics of the instant registered design cannot be determined by the body, and it cannot be deemed as a design that causes an aesthetic impression. In addition, in Korea, the Doby “Doby” is one of the opening devices widely known in the Republic of Korea to put up a slope in order to supply the Doby when displaying a direct object. As such, the Doby is one of the opening devices that put up a slope in place in order to supply the Doby. The Doby is called “Dobn”, “Dobton”, and the Dobndo’s pattern is called “Dobn” the Do

However, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) can easily create the design by combining them, and thus, the registration should be invalidated by Article 68(1)1, Article 5, and Article 2(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Design Protection Act”).

The registration invalidation trial against the registered design of this case is sought.