The costs of lawsuit.

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s trademark “” (hereinafter “instant applied trademark”) as indicated in B(b) below.

On September 22, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office filed an application for trademark registration on the ground that “the trademark of this case is identical or similar to another person’s trademark “JYJ UN,” “JYJJ UNHOSPAL,” “JYJJ UNCITRALGY,” “JYJJJ UN MESGY,” “JJJJ UN MCRGP,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” “absium,” and “absent group,” and “absent group, similar group of the designated goods (absent service business),” and submitted a notification of the grounds for rejection to the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office under Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016).

3. On September 20, 2017, the board of examiners of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided that “The trademark of this case is similar to the pre-use trademark recognized as the trademark of a specific person among consumers in Germany as the trademark related to cosmetics, etc. at the time of the application, and its designated goods are identical or similar to the goods used in the pre-use trademark. Thus, it is deemed that the applicant has filed for unjust purposes, such as taking advantage of the reputation of the pre-use trademark, and it falls under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act.” On the same day, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided that “the trademark of this case constitutes the trademark of this case for the same reasons as