A. C and the Plaintiff’s manufacture and sale of the instant products Nos. 1 and 2 from April 2012 to April 2012, a list of the fertilizers for the purpose of promoting plant self-sufficiency (1)

A. The Plaintiff established the Plaintiff on October 29, 2013 when manufacturing and selling “D” products (hereinafter “instant products”) at the time of selling and selling them, and run the business of manufacturing and selling fertilizers and agricultural chemicals products including the instant products. From around October 2014, the Plaintiff changed the containers of the instant products to the attached list (1).

B. The E products (hereinafter “E”) are manufactured and sold.

B. The Defendants’ products manufacturing and sales 1) Defendant Nitco was a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, selling, exporting, etc. agricultural fertilizers, and manufactured and sold Defendant Nitco products from March 2014. (2) Defendant Esco manufactured and sold Defendant Nitco products from November 2013 as a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and distributing agricultural materials, fertilizers, and steel products.

3) Defendant B engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling fertilizers and plant nutrition products with the trade name of F, and around August 2014, Defendant B manufactured and sold Defendant B products. 4) Defendant Agricultural Technology was a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling fertilizers wholesale and retail business, fertilizers business, etc., and manufactured and sold Defendant Agricultural Technology Products from around 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, Eul evidence 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that “(i) the Defendants committed an act of causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s products using a trademark identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark of Articles 1 and 2 of this case, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, and thus constitutes an act of causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s products.”