1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered design (Evidence 2) 1)/ filing date/registration date/registration publication date/: A product subject to design registration No. 598452// May 28, 2011: A description of the design and major drawings of May 4, 2011: [Attachment 1]; (b) the Defendant’s prior design (Evidence 3) / filing date / registration date / registration date / registration date: A product subject to design registration No. 325439/ May 22, 2002: A product subject to design fence 3/ June 7, 2003: a description of the design and major drawings [Attachment 2].

C. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for a trial for invalidation of registration (Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Design Protection Act”) against the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that “the registered design of this case is identical or similar to the prior design, and falls under Article 5(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Design Protection Act”). As a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) can easily create the registered design from prior design, the Intellectual Property Tribunal sought a trial for invalidation of registration (Article 2017Da592, Dec. 29, 2017).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registered design of this case does not constitute Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act, since the ordinary designer could not easily create the registered design from the prior design.