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

A. The Plaintiff’s registered trademark (Evidence A 5 and 6) 1 / the filing date of the application / the filing date of the registration: The registered trademark D/E/F 2 November 1, 201: previous designated goods: 3) as shown in attached Table 1: (b) the pre-use trademark 1) the Gu type of goods: (c) the user of the flag, its own products: A stock company (hereinafter “G”)

C. On December 21, 2017, the Defendant filed a request for invalidation trial against the Plaintiff on the designated goods indicated in attached Table 2 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da14033, Feb. 29, 2016) by asserting that “The registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to the pre-use trademark recognized as the trademark of a specific person in the Republic of Korea and thus causing confusion to consumers as to the source.” Moreover, since the registered trademark of this case is used for unlawful purpose of obtaining unfair profits by taking advantage of the business reputation of the pre-use trademark, the Defendant’s request for invalidation trial against the designated goods indicated in attached Table 2 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da3990, Dec. 4, 2018) that “The pre-use trademark of this case constitutes a trademark indicating the source of the registered trademark of this case to the extent that it could mislead consumers at the time of the registration decision of the trademark of this case and its designated goods.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 102, Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (grounds for cancellation of trial decision) is the genuine holder of the pre-use trademark, and the pre-use trademark is actually managed by G.