1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for design registration on October 10, 2008 with respect to the following designs (hereinafter “instant design”). At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff granted the design right registration as the No. 30-05718 on March 25, 2010. At the time of the said application, each disclosure made on April 11, 2008, July 3, 2008, and September 10, 2008, the Plaintiff offered an exception to the loss of newness.

A design: A description of the luminous design for parking marking: ① The material is metal materials and plastics; ② the main point of the design creation that the driver uses it to distinguish the parking range from the long distance: while utilizing the shape of an excursion ship as a basic framework, a large number of forms were formed at the time of viewing it on the scambling side, and formed at the time of viewing it from the perspective, and also a drawing that makes it possible for the driver to understand it from the outside to the front direction of 360 degrees: the same as a drawing 2.

B. The Defendant’s implementation act is manufacturing and selling so-called “Defendant’s products” for parking lots indicated in the annexed Form 1 (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, and the purport of the whole statement or video, or pleading as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s act of manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s product similar to the instant design constitutes an act infringing the Plaintiff’s design right regarding the instant design, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks prohibition and damages, such as the written claim, against the Defendant. 2) The design of the Defendant’s product as to the summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not similar to the instant design, and the design registration is null and void due to the lack of newness, and the design of the Defendant’s product falls under the scope of the right to design of this case.