1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. 1) Date of application/application number of the design in this case: A description and drawings of the design in B/C 2: D3: as shown in attached Form 1. (b) Date of application (Evidence 1) prior designs (Evidence 1) / Date of application / Publication / Application Number : E/F/G 2: A description and drawings of the design in H3: (Attachment 2).

C. On September 4, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the argument that “The design of this case does not constitute an industrial-use design under the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act because it is impossible to grasp the design in light of the content of the application and drawing, and thus, cannot obtain design registration because it constitutes an industrial-use design under the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act, and the design registration cannot be obtained because it falls under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act because it is similar to the prior design,” along with the amendment on September 9, 2018.

3) On November 6, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner decided to reject the application of this case’s design on the ground that “the instant design was rejected in the grounds for rejection against the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act, but the grounds for rejection under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act has not been removed among the grounds for rejection as of September 4, 2018.” As to such, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said decision of rejection (2018 Won4660) with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 15, 2018, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 19, 2019, applied for a trial against the said decision of rejection to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal (2018 Won460).”