1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The title of the invention claimed in this case (Evidence 1): 1,3,3-tetrabropropropla filing date/the filing date/the filing number of the application: September 16, 2011; / 10/910; 4) claims (as amended on October 2, 2013) (as amended on October 2, 201), 15 through 95% of the weight of the claim 1-5 through 95%, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3-tetrabropropla (HFO-1234ze) and 5 through 95% of the composition of the invention described in this case: 2, 3, 1, 2-tetrabro (attached Form 1, 2, 205) and 1, 3, 5 or 95% of the composition of the invention described in this case (hereinafter referred to as “pu2, 2013”).

B. Invention (Evidence No. 6) published on November 19, 2009 and published on November 19, 2009, US 2009/0285764.A1, is related to the creation of the official nature of the tetetraflulupropropropropy and the Hadrolulululululusium (AZEOTR PPE-LIK COPE COMPOS ITRS COMTRS OTROTRAL TRAL EXE CYOPENS) and its main contents are as shown in [Attachment 2].

C. 1) On December 5, 2012, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff that “the invention of this case does not meet the specification requirements under Article 42(3)1 and (4)2 of the Patent Act,” and the claim 1-3, 6, and 7 is denied by the comparison of inventions. Claim 1-7 is a prior literature presented by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, who had ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) prior to the filing of the application, based on the comparison of inventions and the claim 4-17092 on the grounds of the denial of the inventive step of the invention of this case by the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office as described in Article 2010-17092 of the Patent Act.” Then, the Plaintiff’s submission of the written opinion and the written opinion on April 4, 2013.