1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Name of the instant patent invention 1: D2) filing date/registration date/registration number: E/F/ C3: the Plaintiffs 4) claims and drawings: (Attachment 1).

The claim 1 of the patented invention of this case is referred to as the "claim 1 invention of this case", and the remaining claims are also described in the same manner.

B. Invention 1) Invention 1 (Evidence 4 A)/Public Notice Publication: The name of May 31, 1985 / Korean Registered Invention No. 85-780 (b) of the Korean Patent Gazette: The method of piling up and the main drawing of the device thereof (attached Form 2).

2) Cited Invention 2 falls under a device registered as a utility model, but is in a corresponding relationship with the instant patent invention, and thus becomes convenient inventions. (No. 1) Publication/Public Notice Publication: January 20, 1992 / Publication Publication: Name of 1992-651(b) of the Korean Utility Model Gazette: Main drawing of Shotra’s Shotra for an automatic loading device (Two Whoer C): 2.

3) Cited Invention 3 (No. 2 (A) / Publication Publication: September 1, 1990 / The Korean Patent Gazette peculiar No. 1990-12824(b): The device and method for the automatic transport of the bricks.

C. On February 11, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for a trial for invalidation of registration (2014DaDa375) on the ground that “The nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiffs, a patentee, is denied by the cited Invention No. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) on the grounds that “the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1, 2, and 5 is easily recognizable by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains,” and that “the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1, 4, and 5 are denied by the Cited Invention 1, 2, and 3.” The Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 23, 2014.