1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 19, 2016 on the case No. 2015Da5643 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. Registration number 1) / filing date/registration date of the instant registered design: The name of the product: drawings (attached Form 1) for fences: (b) the name of the product: drawings for prior designs 3: (c) the number of design subject to confirmation is as shown in attached Form 2; (c) the prior designs 1 falls under the “design subject to comparison” of the instant trial decision.

(A) The name of the product is "GR-207" (from January 1, 2013 to January 16, 2015) with fences posted on the website of the friendly safety corporation.

2) The name of the product is "KL-83" as a rail for the sidewalk posted on July 19, 2012 on the website of the Do enterprise company of Prior Design 2 (No. 2). 3) The name of the product is "DH-G7" (from July 15, 2013 to July 15, 2016) of the Do enterprise of Prior Design 3 (No. 18) (No. 18) of the prior design 3 (No. 18) of the public facilities of Gyeonggi-do.

On December 18, 2015, the Defendant filed a motion for the trial to confirm the scope of the registered design of this case with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, the holder of the registered design of this case, claiming that the challenged design does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the case as 2015Da5643, and decided September 19, 2016, on the ground that “the challenged design falls under the scope of the registered design of this case, because the registered design of this case was similar to the prior design 1 publicly notified before the application for the registered design of this case, and does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case without need to comparison with the registered design of this case.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The key point of the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the design subject to confirmation has been specifically identified as compared to the registered design of the instant case.