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

The Plaintiff is a service mark holder as to the mark listed in the attached Table 1 List.

(hereinafter “instant service mark”). The date of application for registration of the mark (hereinafter “instant mark”) (hereinafter “instant mark”) registration number D: service name and classification using F service mark as of the date of registration: (a) the Defendant’s trade name alteration and use of the mark (20 hotel business, etc.) was established on May 9, 2013; and (b) the Defendant runs hotel business in Busan-gu G, Busan-gu; and (c) on January 28, 2015, the name was changed from “C” to “B” as of January 28, 2015.

After the change of trade name, the Defendant has used the instant mark for the business mark of hotel business, etc. and its Internet homepage (C).

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 3's each statement (including a serial number) and the basis of the judgment as to the cause of claim for the determination of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant used the same mark as the service mark of this case registered in the plaintiff's name for hotel business business or other business mark, and registered the domain name as "C" and used the mark on the Internet homepage. Accordingly, the defendant infringed the plaintiff's service mark right.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered by infringement of the plaintiff's service mark right, and to respond to the claim such as prohibition of use and abandonment of the mark.

The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant service mark falls under Article 7(1)18 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11962, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “Trademark Act”), and it is obvious that the instant service mark will be invalidated by an invalidation trial, as it falls under Article 7(1)18 of the same Act.