(a)each mark listed in the separate sheet, annexed hereto;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a trademark 1 and trademark 2 indicated in the attached Table, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B are one-half of the right to registered trademark 3 and trademark 10 indicated in the attached Table, respectively.

Defendant M&D (hereinafter “Defendant M”) concluded a trademark use agreement with Defendant B regarding the use of each of the trademarks listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the trademarks of this case”).

However, since the Plaintiff only allowed the use of each trademark of this case on the clothes in Defendant M, but did not allow the use of each trademark of this case on each of the goods listed in the separate sheet, Defendant M shall not display or use each trademark of this case on each of the goods listed in the separate sheet.

Nevertheless, since Defendant AM has indicated or used each of the trademarks in the corresponding goods listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff sought the prohibition of the act as described in paragraph (1) of this Article against Defendant A and the destruction of the goods as described in paragraph (2) of this Article.

B. In relation to Defendant B, the Plaintiff is an owner of the trademark 1 and trademark 2 indicated in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B are one-half of the right of trademark 3 and trademark 10 indicated in the separate sheet.

With the Plaintiff’s consent, Defendant B entered into a trademark use agreement granting the right to use each trademark of this case for the goods in Defendant B’s clothes, and received USD 30,000 from Defendant B as down payment.

Defendant B entered into an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay 1/2 of the down payment, which he received from Defendant B, to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B entered into a U.S. currency 15,000 dollars (i.e., USD 30,000 x 1/2) and damages for delay.