1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 31, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered design (Evidence A2 and 3) 1)/ the filing date/registration number: C/D/E2: A description of the F design;

1. The design is composed of metal materials and synthetic resin. 2. The design is supplied with buffer packaging shields cut at regular intervals from Belgiumers and automatically marked by air molecules and consensus, and thereafter, it is intended to transfer the buffer packing shields to the upper floor board on a certain quantity. The main content of the design creation is that if the buffer packing shields are displayed on the upper floor board, they will be transferred to the upper level. The main content of the design creation main content of the design is that the upper level of the upper level of the upper level of the upper level of the upper level of the map on the upper level of the upper level of the 1st degree, referring to the combination of the shape of “F” and the shape of “F”

B. The design with respect to “F” specified by the Defendant, which is a product that the Plaintiff was involved in the design subject to confirmation, is as follows:

A plane map map of the right side map of the surface surface map of the sloping map of a private road;

C. Pre-design (Evidence A4 and 8) is a photograph and design drawings of the buffer package automatic floor device. However, in comparison with the registered design of this case, the prior design is “design” for convenience.

G Concerning the buffer package automatic floor device that was manufactured and supplied by the Defendant around 2005, the photographs and design drawings thereof are as follows:

The Defendant, the owner of the design right of the instant registered design (No. 1) on February 10, 2017, is entitled to the scope of protection of the registered design of this case, since the design claimed by the Plaintiff is identical or similar to the registered design of this case, and the shape and shape of the design of this case are identical or similar to those of the registered design of this case, so the Defendant, the owner of the design right of this case, falls under the scope of protection.

2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for an active trial to confirm the scope of the right of the challenged design.