1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 5 million with the Plaintiff, and 15% per annum with respect thereto, from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for the service mark D’s “E” (hereinafter “instant service mark”) as a designated service business, and completed F’s registration, and operates a restaurant using the name “I” or “J”, which is the English language of the instant service mark, from the end of 2012 to the husband G, Y from the end of 2012, Seomun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, as well as his husband G, in order to write down, liners, and misunderstandings only the initial nature of the instant service mark.

B. Defendant B, from February 26, 2014 to November 1, 2011, operated a restaurant (E) with the trade name “I” in the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-si from February 26, 2014, was a person who used the said mark (trade name) for signboards, mail new boards, advertisements, etc., and Defendant C, a person who operated the open-type institute (private teaching institute) with the trade name “K”, recommended Defendant B to use the said “I (E) as a trade name, etc., and designs the said mark.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of Gap's Nos. 1 through 19, Eul's No. 1, 2, and 4, including various types of numbers, or the whole purport of pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the above defendant's use of the service mark "E" and the mark "I (E) used by the defendant Eul is identical or similar to its appearance, name, and concept, and since Lestop business, which is the designated service business of the service mark of this case, are identical or similar to the service provided by the defendant Eul. Thus, the above defendant's use of the service mark constitutes infringement on the plaintiff's service right of this case.

Defendant C’s act of making the mark “I (E)” identical or similar to the instant service mark and allowing Defendant B to use it in its trade name, etc. also infringes on the Plaintiff’s above service mark right. The Defendants’ act of infringing on the service mark right constitutes joint tort against the Plaintiff.

The defendants are arguing that there is no intention or negligence of the above infringement, but the defendant C is a 11-year educational institute.