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

A. The Plaintiff is a representative director of a corporation E (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) that produces and sells products, such as bags, clothing, hats, etc. using each trademark as a trademark right holder of each trademark indicated below.

Nos. 1 A, clothing, oral, etc. (Nos. 18, 25) F GH 2 A(No. 18), IJ K 3 A, etc. (No. 18) on the date of registration of the applicant for trademark designated goods (goods classification) L MN, etc. (No. 18)

B. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company that manufactures, distributes, and sells visuals, scenics, and classicals, etc.; Defendant B is a representative of the Defendant Co., Ltd. as an intra-company director; Defendant C is the vice president of the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the time of birth in Defendant B

C. Defendant B filed an application for trademark registration with the application number of “” on the part of the designated goods with the inner scamblings such as O, Gglass, etc. as the designated goods

(hereinafter “instant application for trademark registration”). D.

The Plaintiff filed an application for trademark registration of Q “” (hereinafter “instant trademark”) with the scambling, glass, etc., as the designated goods.

E. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Korean Intellectual Property Office a written submission to the Defendant for information that there is a ground to refuse trademark registration under the Trademark Act, and the Korean Intellectual Property Office provided the Defendant with an opportunity to present his/her opinion on the application. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff rejected the instant application for trademark registration filed by Defendant B.

F. The Plaintiff’s trademark of this case was published by R application.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8 through 11 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 26, 2013, Defendant C knew of the Plaintiff’s punishment by Defendant C’s program for the publication of the instant trademark from S, the actual operator of the Plaintiff Company, and subsequently, in collusion with Defendant B, filed the instant application for trademark registration with the same trademark as the instant trademark.