1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant entered the instant patent invention in violation of Article 42(4)1, 2, and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) as “the instant patent invention in violation of Article 42(4)1, 2, and 3” on the ground that “the description of claims concerning the elements 1, 2, and 3 of the instant patent invention is unclear, and is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and is not indicated to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant patent invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily execute the instant patent invention, and thus, the instant patent invention in violation of Article 42(4)1, 2, and 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 200; hereinafter the same) is denied by the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 251, 301.

B. The title of the patented invention of this case (Evidence A 1 and 2): D filing date/registration date/registration number: E/F/G patentee: The outline of the patented invention of this case is to install a escape prevention unit (26) supporting the movement counter (14) from the upper body (2) connecting the upper body (14) with the purification tank or the large container of the patented invention of this case in a single form or in an integrated form, and to adjust the height to the upper body (25) connecting the movement counter (25) to the outer upper body (23), and the height to the fixed width (24) connecting the movement counter (5) with the upper body (31) connected with the upper body (32).