From around 2008, the victim C operated the service mark "E" in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (F date service mark application, G date registration, and registration number H). The defendant B is between the victim and the elementary school, and the defendant A is the wife of the victim B, and the defendant was well aware that the victim operated the "E" in I.

The victim, at Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J around May 2014, the victim made K (hereinafter “K”) with the name of the victim, and the trademark was changed to “M” in addition to “L” in the existing “E” and the victim entered into a contract with the victim to bear the deposit for the lease of the building at home and to divide the amount of the initial operating fund from the Defendants and to reflect the profits of the victim and the Defendants, and operated the trademark as well as the above K.

around October 2015, the Defendants and the victims made P in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N3 Madcot P, and the Defendants shared and operated the total operating fund, but divided profits with the victims who are service mark right holders, and operated the hambr selling business from October 15, 2015.

On the other hand, the victim C applied for registration of service mark with the Korean Intellectual Property Office around Q date, which seems to use the above P P' service mark without permission, and the victim C was registered as the service mark holder.

(Registration Number S. The Defendants received a demand from the victim to distribute P’s profits for the use of the service mark continuously, but continued to refuse to participate in the K operation on April 7, 2016, upon receipt of the victim’s notice from the victim that he/she was not involved in the K operation, and around June 23, 2016.