1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff sells and sells each new product listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff’s product”) from September to October 2015, 2015 to the company engaged in electronic commerce, clothing and miscellaneous board manufacturing, new sales, etc., and each new product listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s product”) from around October 2015 to the company engaged in the e-commerce business, clothing and miscellaneous board manufacturing, and new sales business. When being individually referred to, the products listed in the aforementioned separate sheet (1) are manufactured and sold.

B. On December 2015, the Defendant: (a) was engaged in the manufacturing, wholesale, retail, etc. of clothing miscellaneous yarns, yarns, fibers, and plastic goods; and (b) manufactured and sold each new product indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant products”); and (c) products listed in the separate sheet (1) and (2) as indicated in the above separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant products”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant manufactures and sells the Defendant’s product which imitates the product form of the Plaintiff’s product, which is the Plaintiff’s product. This constitutes an act of imitateing the product form under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), and constitutes an unfair competition act, and the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s product is the result produced by considerable effort and investment, and its imitated act constitutes a tort under the Civil Act, and the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts the cause of the above claim selectively, and against the Defendant, KRW 8,529,842 [The amount of profit per unit quantity of Defendant 1 1 x sales volume of KRW 604) 430,806 (the amount of profit per unit quantity of Defendant 2).