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 design of this case is the owner of the design right under the registered design, and the shape and shape are as indicated below the left side of the list under paragraph (3).

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s design”. The name and design are the subject matter of the design: The date of filing of the triart manufacturing unit/ the date of registration/registration number: The description of the design on April 25, 2014/19/19/00 or 30-772695 of the design: The material is plastic, synthetic resin, and this design is the substance of plastic, synthetic resin, and the substance of the design is the substance of the design in combination with the shape of the design that combines the shape of “tribit manufacturing machine” and the shape of the design in which plastic, synthetic, and the substance of the design is filled with heavy water inside the triart manufacturing unit, and the container in which the triart, milk, or triart is filled with, and is made a set. The design is the structure of the upper part and the shape of the design in which the surface is sealed to enhance internal ion.

B. The defendant's status 2) The defendant is an enterprise producing kitchen supplies, etc., and the manufacturer of the crypt as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the defendant's product").

【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 through 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiff’s design right regarding the registered design of this case by manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s product similar to the registered design of this case, the Plaintiff sought prohibition of infringement and destruction of the Defendant’s product against the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff’s design of this case and the Defendant’s product are different in aesthetic sense and are not similar to each other, and the Plaintiff’s design of this case is a publicly known design with no new creation, and thus, its scope of right cannot be recognized.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The similarity of the relevant legal doctrine design must be compared to the appearance of the design as a whole.