2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. 1) Date of application/registration number of the instant registered service mark 1)/registration number: Designated service business on August 10, 2010: Transportation business, transportation business, lease of transportation appliances and equipment, transportation agency business, transportation brokerage business, reservation business, transportation information service, transportation agency business, transportation brokerage business, transportation brokerage business, transportation brokerage business, removal and removal of articles, transportation service, automobile transportation business, door-to-door transportation business, truck transportation business, transportation business, transportation brokerage business, cargo delivery business, cargo delivery service, cargo transportation information provision business, cargo transportation brokerage business, cargo transportation brokerage business, furniture, gas transportation business, international complex transportation business, money transportation business, valuables transportation business or ear goods transportation business, agricultural products transportation business, agricultural products transportation business, goods delivery business, service mark 4): Plaintiff:

(b) Composition of the challenged mark 1: 2) Use service business: The defendant; 3 users, including cargo transport brokerage business, cargo brokerage business, etc.;

C. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial to confirm the passive scope of rights (2014Da1742) that “the instant marks are not included in the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark” under Article 51(1)2 or 3 of the Trademark Act, asserting that the instant marks subject to confirmation fall under Article 51(1)2 or 3 of the Trademark Act, and that “the instant marks are not included in the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark.” (2) On December 30, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the Defendant’s request for a trial and rendered the instant trial decision that the instant marks subject to confirmation do not fall under the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark. The instant marks subject to confirmation do not distinguish the “nation” among the marks subject to registration of the instant case, and “cate” does not indicate the method of use of the relevant service business, and “nick,” “nick,” and “nick,” “transport”.