1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 30, 2013 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2012DaDa2920 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The name of the device at issue (Evidence 3) 1 of the registered device at issue: The filing date / the priority date / the registration date / the registration number : February 6, 2012 / the claims and major drawings of October 17, 2012 (No. 20-46320, Oct. 17, 2012): as shown in Attached Table 1. (b) The prior design 1 (Evidence 4) concerns “the container noise prevention structure of a motor vehicle” published on June 1, 199 as stated in Attached Table 20-0134879 of the registered Utility Model Gazette publicly announced on June 1, 199, and its main contents and drawings are as listed in Attached Table 2(1).

2) Prior art 2 (Evidence 5) concerns “procking device” inserted in the Patent Gazette No. 10-032123 on March 18, 2002. The main contents and drawings thereof are as shown in attached Form 2(2)3. The prior art 3 (Evidence 9) concerns “the method of forming a procking floor on the outer surface of the mobilephone case” published on January 8, 2008 in the Patent Gazette No. 10-2008-03474, which is published on January 8, 2008. The main contents and drawings thereof are as listed in attached Form 2(3).

4) The prior art 4 (Evidence 10 of A) pertains to the "motor-time system" inserted in Article 93-010301 of the Patent Gazette published on April 22, 198, published on April 22, 198. 5) The prior art 5 (Evidence 11 of the Patent Gazette published on July 15, 1998 is related to the "vehicle fixed-type system" inserted in Article 198-028230 of the Patent Gazette published on July 15, 1998, and its main contents and drawings are as shown in attached Form 2(4).

6) The prior art 6 (Evidence 12 of the prior art) pertains to the “closion for fixing the strings of vehicles” as stated in the Utility Model Gazette No. 1993-039673, which was disclosed on September 15, 1998, and its main contents and drawings are as shown in attached Table 2(5). C) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the registration on November 12, 2012 with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the instant petition for registration by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), who has ordinary knowledge in the art, is extremely easily designed by the prior art 3 through 6.

2. On December 30, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Patent Trial and Appeal Board").