1. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

A. Whether a mark indicating another person’s goods is widely known domestically under Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) is based on the period of use, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., the actual condition of goods transaction, and whether it is objectively known under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10562, Sept. 11, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the "H" (hereinafter "the mark of this case") was used for about 15 years from August 31, 1994 when the victim registered his business with his trade name to the time when the defendant incorporation of "T stock company", and its sales amount increased from about 74 billion won to about 1.4 billion won in around 2003. Around 2008, around KRW 2.1 billion in around 2009 and around 2.1 billion in around 209, the mark of this case was introduced in various victim's lectures about natural cosmetics, newspapers, broadcasting companies, etc., but it is difficult to view that the mark of this case was acquired as a "natural cosmetics" around June 9, 2009, which is the date of the crime in this case.

(On the other hand, the above circumstances alone make it difficult to deem the instant mark to have obtained well-knownness as a business mark concerning "natural cosmetics sales business". Nevertheless, the lower court, without any particular grounds, has nature around the day of the instant crime.