1. The defendant,

(a) not manufacture or sell products listed in the attached Defendant Product;

B. The defendant.

A. As the Defendant is presumed to have been negligent pursuant to paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the infringement of the design right of this case.

2) In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 14 and 16 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The Defendant’s sales volume of the Defendant’s product is estimated based on the quotation submitted by the Plaintiff at the construction site where the Defendant sold the Defendant’s product, as indicated in the table below, if the Defendant calculated the quantity of the Defendant’s product on the basis of a quotation submitted by the Plaintiff at the construction site where the Defendant sold the Defendant’s product (the Defendant’s product is not the Defendant’s product, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2). ② The amount of profit per unit quantity obtained by the Plaintiff from the sale of the Plaintiff’s product manufactured by applying the instant design is KRW 2,906 per unit of the product “50m*500m*60m” in 2014 and KRW 6,327 per unit of the product “6,327m” in 205. “50m*600m*600m*600m per unit of the product”).

③ The amount calculated by multiplying the amount of profit per unit in 2014 for the goods supplied by the Defendant at the construction site of the Consumer Protection Board around 2014, and the amount of profit per unit in 2015 for the goods sold at the construction site of the El Pluter Construction site of the 2015 and the amount of profit per unit in 2015 shall be calculated as follows:

B) In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s infringement of the design right may be recognized as KRW 481,494,150 pursuant to Article 115(1) of the Design Protection Act (Article 64(1) of the former Design Protection Act) (Article 64(1) of the former Design Protection Act). The Defendant asserted that the sales volume based on the area related to the calculation of damages was erroneous, and filed an application for resumption of pleadings

However, this case is classified by item after the filing of the lawsuit on June 27, 2016.