1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registration number/application date/registration date of the registered design of this case: The product subject to design on September 5, 2012//Sgd. 30-0742///registration date: The description of a design on May 14, 2014: 【Explanation of the design on board a motor vehicle and the description of the creation of a design】

1. The material is synthetic rubber material. 2. Sheet line urbanized on the Yado-do, with reference to the part extension map 1. 【The main point of the design creation’ is the combination of the shape and shape of the original “other vehicle typine” in which the shape is expressed in the shape of the motor vehicle typology publicly known;

b. Major drawing: [Sagdo] ground plan and low-level plan are the same as that.

[Attachment 1] [Intersection 1] The right side also is the same as that.

B. The Defendant’s product sells the typists for automobiles listed in the [Attachment 1] of the shape and shape as follows (AGR29).

The level of self-sufficiency also has been extended.

(c) Attached Table 2 of the Prior Design is as listed in each paragraph;

(hereinafter referred to as “prior design” according to the pertinent sequence. 【Ground for Recognition】 Dissatisced facts, Gap’s entries and videos (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) with the evidence set forth in Articles 3, 9, 12, and 13, Eul’s 3 through 22, 25 through 34, 44, 46 through 51, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Appropriateness of the instant claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) because the Defendant sold the Defendant’s product similar to the registered design of this case and infringed the Plaintiff’s registered design of this case, the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant for prohibition of infringement, destruction of infringed products, and compensation for damages as indicated in the purport of the claim. 2) The Defendant’s claim is not only similar to the registered design of this case, but also falling under the scope of protection of the registered design of this case, but also within the scope of protection of the registered design of this case, and the registered design of this case can be easily created from the prior design.