1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 23, 2014 on the case No. 854 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered the Intellectual Property Tribunal a trial ruling cited by the Defendant on the ground that “the instant registered petition may have been easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) from the preceding petition 1 and 2. The nonobviousness of the petition is denied.” On the ground that “The instant registered petition was filed for a trial for invalidation of registration on the instant petition for registration on the ground that it is. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said petition for invalidation trial as 2014Da8544, and concluded on December 23, 2014, on the ground that “the instant petition for registration may be easily designed by the preceding petition 1 and 2, thus its nonobviousness is denied.”

B. The name of the device of this case (Evidence 3) 1: the filing date/registration date/registration date/registration number: the holder of the right on March 10, 2006 / May 25, 2006 / 20-41708) the device of this case in technical field is related to the revolving electrical appliances of this case, which is detailed in the composition of a combination with Hand hands-ons making the revolving or driving the revolving body, which has occurred in the time of the revolving session of the said revolving body, and thus, the said revolving structure of the revolving body (the 2nd 119 Na 2) and the previous technical rupture (the second rupture) and the previous technical rupture (the second rupture of the revolving body) are related to the revolving structure of the revolving body (the second rupture of the revolving body (the second rupture) and the two rupture (the second rupture of the revolving body) above).