The plaintiff's claim (including an additional claim) that the court changed on an exchange basis is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The scope of this court’s trial at the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s prohibition of use of service mark based on the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of infringement of service mark right and the claim for destruction of infringing products, and the claim for damages based on Article 67(3) of the Trademark Act. The part of the claim for prohibition of infringement and the claim for destruction of infringing products were accepted. The claim for damages was dismissed in its entirety. The Plaintiff only appealed the part of the judgment of first instance and filed an appeal against the claim for damages, and then the court changed the claim for statutory damages under Article 67-2(1) of the Trademark Act in exchange for and added it to this court as seen earlier. Accordingly, the subject of this court’s trial is limited to statutory

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the premise facts is as follows: “The Defendant shall close the website (D and evidence No. 9-2) which the Defendant had operated with respect to the business of the Institute of Education around December 2, 2013,” “not later than the date of November 2013,” “not later than December 2013,” and “not later than the date of December 1, 2013,” and “not later than the date of December 14, 2013,” and “not later than the date of December 4, 2013,” except for the reasons indicated “1. Basic facts”, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The issues of this case and the existence of statutory liability for damages under Article 67-2(1) of the Defendant’s assertion of the parties [Plaintiff’s assertion] The Plaintiff published C service mark on the Blog operated by the Plaintiff around September 2013, immediately after the Plaintiff purchased C service mark, urged the Defendant to suspend the use of C service mark, demanded the Defendant to respond to the Defendant’s request for revocation of registration for C service mark, and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the C service mark is used.