1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the development, etc. of e-mail-driving aircraft with the trade name of “H”, and registered each of the designs as listed in the attached Table 1 through 6 in relation to the electric source unit operator of the e-aircraft model, and sold power sets that the said electric source operator entered as a part.

B. From March 2013, the Defendant has sold power sets that a person who completed or completed the design, as shown in attached Form 7 or 8, enters as a part, from the electric source developer of the design.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant registered the design in the attached Form 8 as follows.

The registration number/application date/registration date: F

D. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm the scope of rights (No. 2014No. 67) that the attached design does not fall under the scope of rights because it is not identical or similar to the attached design 2, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the attached design on July 30, 2014.

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the scope of right (2014Heo6124) with the Patent Court of Korea as against the Defendant, which is similar to the attached design 2 and falls under the scope of the right, and thus the instant trial decision should be revoked illegally. On February 5, 2015, the Patent Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the attached design is identical to the attached design 2, and its dominant characteristics are similar to the attached design 2, and that the decision by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission, which has different conclusions, falls under the scope of the right of the attached design 2, was revoked unlawfully, and that the said decision became final and conclusive as it is.

E. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the above attached 8 design registered by the Defendant is similar to the design indicated in the attached 2, 3, and 4 of the Plaintiff, and that the registration should be invalidated merely because it can be easily created by combining them.