When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who operates “C” to sell precious metals, visibility, etc. on the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and the first floor.

No person shall commit an act of infringing on a trademark right or exclusive use right, such as possessing, for the purpose of transferring or delivering goods identical with or similar to designated goods on which another person's registered trademark or any other trademark similar thereto is marked.

On April 20, 2020, the Defendant displayed and stored at the display stand for the purpose of sale four points with a forged trademark identical or similar to D’D (trademark registration number E, registered right holderF), a trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (G registration number H, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office) and three points with the hand log 3 points with a counterfeited trademark attached, identical or similar to G (G registration number H, registered right holder I), a trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office, or the J (trademark registration number K, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office L), for the purpose of selling the hand log 4 points with a forged trademark attached with the trademark identical or similar to D’s trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration number K, registered right holder L).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant asserts that the trademark infringement products of this case were kept as samples since 10 years ago, and they were used only for the purpose of referring them to the original text of the works, and that they were not possessed for sale purposes. The defendant asserts that the reporter's statement, the reporter's statement, the fact-finding certificate and employment certificate related to knowledge property rights, the NF product appraisal statement, the register of trademark registration, the investigation report (verification of display photographs), the field photographic data, and the investigation report (the record of the defendant's violation of the Trademark Act).

However, the following circumstances based on evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, that is, the goods of this case were not opened at the time of seizure, and the price list was attached thereto, and the defendant also stated that the price was KRW 300,000,000, and the reporter who pretended to be the customer and visited the defendant's store, or the police officer who visited the defendant's store is also 30,000 won per visibility.