Defendant A applied for a trademark similar to the design of this case (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) as follows, but received KRW 1 million from Defendant B on July 24, 2015, and transferred the said applicant’s status.

Defendant B filed an application for the Defendant trademark of the design of this case and registered the trademark thereafter, and then using the signboard, publicity materials, etc. of this case

While operating this specialty, the Plaintiff asserted that it was copyright infringement and raised an issue, the Plaintiff replaced the signboard using the said trademark on December 2016, and renounced the right to registration of the said trademark on September 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 evidence, Gap 7-1 through 7, Eul 1-6 evidence, each of the images and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not specify the Plaintiff’s copyright Plaintiff’s copyright infringement by filing and registering the Defendant’s trademark similar to the instant design, which is the Plaintiff’s work, and using it in the restaurant operated by Defendant B. However, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff illegally reproduced the instant design without the Plaintiff’s permission. As such, the Plaintiff’s right of publication and the right of reproduction, etc. were infringed.

A. The violation was committed.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for damages incurred by infringement of copyright in the instant Do, and the Plaintiff is also obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million and delay damages incurred therefrom. In addition, the instant Do against the Defendant A.