1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 22, 2019 by the case No. 2016Da3081 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Date of application/registration number 1) / : 3) Designated goods classified into category 19 of goods: concrete non-metallic materials; concrete materials; non-metallic materials for construction; concrete base; non-metallic materials; base plates for construction; non-metallic materials; non-metallic materials for construction; non-metallic materials; waterproof plates for construction; non-metallic materials for construction; non-metallic materials; waterproof walls for construction; non-metallic materials; non-metallic materials for construction; non-metallic materials; non-metallic materials; metal plates for construction; non-metallic materials; metal materials; non-metallic materials; metal plates for construction; non-metallic materials; non-metallic materials; metal materials for construction; metal materials; non-metallic materials for construction; automatic metal materials; non-metallic materials for construction; construction materials; non-metallic materials; non-metallic materials for construction; construction materials; non-metallic materials; design materials; non-metallic materials for construction; design materials; design materials; non-metallic materials for construction; design materials; design materials; design approval of non-metallic materials; design approval of metal; non-metallic materials for construction; design materials

(b) Composition of challenged mark 1: 2) Goods using: 3 users, such as concrete non-metallic removals, concrete agents construction materials, non-metallic agents reinforcement materials for construction, and non-metallic agents automatic typology for construction: the Plaintiff;

C. 1) On October 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark, on the grounds that the mark subject to confirmation and the instant registered trademark are identical or similar to the mark subject to confirmation and the designated goods, and thus, the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark. 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on the instant case as 2016Da3081, and rendered a trial decision on January 22, 2019 on the grounds that the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the Defendant’s registered trademark, and thus the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).

[Ground of recognition] without dispute, and described in Gap evidence 1-3, respectively.