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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff, among the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and service marks, is a person engaged in precious metal trade and related business, and is a right holder of the following trademarks or service marks (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ trademarks”).

1) A) The registration number of a trademark/service mark: The filing date of subparagraph 38534 (b)/ the registration date: (d) the designated goods or the designated service business: d) the category of goods - the registration number of a trademark of Class 14, such as gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, current gold, etc. - the registration number of a trademark of Category 35, classified as service industry: the filing date of Article 926492 (b) / the registration date: the filing date of December 28, 2010 / the registration date: d) the designated goods - gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, etc. classified as category 14.

3) A) The registration number of service mark: the filing date of No. 27548 (b)/ the registration date: November 16, 2012: 4/16/16/16/16, 2013): Ddesignated service - the sales business of precious metals, precious metal retail business, and the provision business of information related to precious metal sales agency business, etc.

B. Defendant marks are engaged in the transaction of precious metals and business related thereto using the following marks (hereinafter “Defendant marks”).

1) 2) The ground for recognition 3) The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 21, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10 (each entry, including various numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As the Defendant, based on the Trademark Act, uses the Defendant’s mark similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark for goods or services identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s designated goods or designated services, he/she seeks compensation for the destruction and damage of the infringing goods, etc. pursuant to Articles 65(1) and (2) and 66-2 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

B. The plaintiff has long asserted based on the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.