1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,421,210 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 5% from May 10, 2014 to July 14, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff registered the design as follows with respect to an electric power source of the electric flight craft model as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registered design of this case”). Registration number / Date of application / Date of registration: The name of a product subject to C/D/ E design: A description of F design, the features and drawings of the creation: as shown in attached Table 1.

B. From March 2013, the Defendant produced and sold “F” of the design, such as the “F” as the “Attachment 2 drawings.”

C. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant filed with the Intellectual Property Tribunal a claim against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm the scope of the right, which is not identical or similar to the registered design of this case, and thus, does not fall under the scope of the right. The Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the claim on July 30, 2014.

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the scope of right (2014Heo6124) with the purport that the instant trial decision should be revoked illegally, since the Defendant’sy-sylled design is similar to the Plaintiff’s registered design and falls under the scope of right. On February 5, 2015, the Patent Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the Defendant’sy-sylled design is identical to the Plaintiff’s registered design of this case, and that the overall aesthetic sense is similar to the Plaintiff’s registered design of this case, and that the decision of the Intellectual Property Tribunal that concluded otherwise falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case, and that the decision of the Intellectual Property Tribunal that concluded was revoked unlawfully, and that the decision became final and conclusive as is.

E. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration should be invalidated merely because the Plaintiff’s design for the pet body (registration number G) that the Defendant registered with the Intellectual Property Tribunal is similar to the Plaintiff’s registered design of this case and can be easily created by combining them.