1. The defendant

(a)sale, export, import, transfer, lease, or transfer or lease, as listed in Appendix 2;

(b) the facts of the basis;

A. The Plaintiff’s registered design (hereinafter “instant design”) 1) filing date/registration date / registration number / design right-holder: The Plaintiff’s registered design (hereinafter “instant design”)’s name on September 5, 2012 / (No. 74202/ Plaintiff 2) and the product subject to design: a description of the three design used for a motor vehicle:

1. The material is synthetic rubber material. 2. Sheet line urbanized on the Yado-do, with reference to a partial extension limit of 1: The main text of the design creation content: the combination of the shape and shape of the original “other vehicle tyption lines” expressed in the shape of the publicly known vehicle type, as the main text of the design creation content;

5) Major drawings: Reference also for reference to Sa City/Do Ma(a-a), b-b, c-C, d-D's extension of the portion of vessels * The remainder of the drawings are as shown in Appendix 1(a).

B. Even if the extension of the portion of the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s implementation products extends, the Defendant imported and sold typists as indicated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”), from July 2015, as a company that engages in the export and sale of typical typ, etc., and from around July 2015, the Defendant imported and sold typists (AESUS)

The Plaintiff is manufacturing or importing and selling the following model name products that have been embodied by changing the design of this case.

Model Name KR88 KRA50 Photographs

(c) as listed in separate paragraphs of Schedule 3 of the Prior Designs;

(hereinafter referred to as “prior design”). [Ground of recognition] Evidence A, Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, 12, and 13, Evidence Nos. 3 through 22, 25 through 34, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the design right of this case was infringed

A. Although there are parts of a publicly known shape among the elements of the relevant legal doctrine as to the similarity of the Defendant’s product and the design of this case’s design, it is necessary to determine the similarity of the design as a whole, unless it does not constitute an element of causing a special aesthetic sense, including this, to the extent that it does not constitute an element of causing a special aesthetic sense. However, the design right is granted to the combination of the new shape, pattern, and color of the product.