World Lead Federation et al. (Law Firm Sejongyang, Attorneys Park Byung-kick et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 2 (Law Firm Mapyeong, Attorney Lee Dong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 26, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap82247 Delivered on January 20, 2005

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Claim :

1. Defendant 1 and Defendant Global Leading Association shall not use the Internet domain names of the above Defendants as the Internet domain names of the above Defendants, and Defendant 2 and Defendant Global Leading Association as the Korean Internet domain names of the above Defendants, respectively.

2. Defendant 1 shall implement the registration procedure for transfer on the ground of the termination of title trust on the respective Internet domain names listed in [Attachment 1 to 4] of the Internet domain names registered by the said Defendant with the Plaintiff World Leading Federation, the Plaintiff National Leading Federation, and the Plaintiff National Leading World Federation, located in the territory of Canada.

The defendant 1 will implement the registration cancellation procedure of each Internet domain name to the National Institute of Leading Law, which is an incorporated organization of the plaintiff.

3. Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the Korean Internet address in attached Form 5, which was registered by the above defendant in the Self-Governing Law Research Council of the Plaintiff, an incorporated association, in accordance with the above defendant's domain name name.

4. The Defendants jointly and severally pay 10,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The purport of appeal: Revocation of a judgment of the first instance court, and seek a judgment stated in the purport of appeal.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, 2-1 through 7, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4 through 6, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 9-1, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 17-1 through 5, Gap evidence 18, 31, Eul evidence 12 through 17, Eul evidence 18-1 through 4, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 21-1 through 6, Eul evidence 23, 24-24, and non-party 1-7 witness's testimony at the court of first instance (not including the testimony at the court of first instance, after the whole).

A. A. A national leading map is a mental and physical training law that was created by the first instance court, the first instance court, the second instance court, the first instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the first instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the second instance court, the first instance court, the second instance court's determination, and the second appeal.

B. On January 10, 1986, the Plaintiff’s leading law research society was an affiliated organization of the national leading law society established for the purpose of carrying on business such as leading and distributing the country, collecting membership fees, operating training centers, compiling books, and selling clothes. Each trademark (designated goods: books, newspapers, brochures, tape-recordings, magazines, etc.) recorded in the separate service mark list (designated goods: compilation business, publishing business, sports management, national guidance business, distribution method, etc.) recorded in the separate service mark list, each business emblem (designated service mark: the national leading business: the national leading business, the national promotion business, the national guidance business, and the national guidance business) recorded in the separate service mark list (hereinafter “the trademark right, service mark right, etc. of the Plaintiff’s leading law registered as above”) has been completed (hereinafter “the trademark right, service mark right, etc. of the case”).

C. On January 24, 199, at the general meeting of national leading leaders held on January 24, 199, the Do Constitution was enacted, and the main contents of the Do Constitution are as follows:

(1) An Angemony General (Article 16)

The Central Office shall have a Secretary-General to exercise overall control over the national leading group. The Central Office shall have the Do Council, the Young-do Council, the subsidiary court, the World Leading Cooperative Secretariat, the World Leading Cooperative Secretariat, and the Do Superintendent-General, who shall have the law as the principal of the liquidation ship and preside over the Do Council.

(2) Original Shares (Article 18)

The term "original owner" is called as the "original owner," who is a legal representative of the national leading Do group, and the original owner may receive a report on the significant matters of the national leading Do group and present his/her instruction or opinion.

(3) A pilot (Articles 19 through 27).

The term of 10 years, a position representing the national leading Do group, shall be 10 years, a term of office serving as the representative Do group. The first Do representative shall be appointed as the original Do representative, and the second Do representative shall be appointed by the Do representative through the associates of the Young Do council. The Do representative shall be appointed as the directors of the global leading Do council and the senior chief

(4) Youngdo Association (Articles 28 through 33)

As the highest deliberation and resolution body for the guidance of the State, the Do Governor shall be the Chairperson, and the Young-do Council shall be comprised of the Chairperson, the President of the Religious Department, the President of the World Institute for Guidance of the State, the President of the World Institute for Guidance of the State, the Chairperson of the

(5) World Leading Cooperative (Articles 41 to 50).

An organization for the purpose of transferring and distributing national guidance (hereinafter referred to as the "Guide Federation"), which originally consists of a domestic or foreign organization that conducts research, training, and distribution of national guidance and a national guidance who conducts or instructs national guidance at home and abroad, and a head of the national guidance initiation and training place. The organization consists of a director appointed by the Do pilot and other auditors, the board of directors, and the chief director appointed by the board of directors, and the chief director elected by the board of directors shall represent the above Doide Federation.

The Research Council on the National Leading Law, an already established, shall be affiliated with the World Leading Association.

(6) Amendment of the Do Constitution (Article 51)

The amendment of the Do Constitution shall be proposed by at least 1/3 of the members of the Young-do Council, and the Do Governor shall promulgate it after deliberation and resolution by the Young-do Council.

D. On January 24, 199, at the general meeting of the above national leading leader, who was held on January 24, 1999, the liquidation ship's wife Nonparty 5, who was acting as the main agent (the main agent of the liquidation ship who was the main agent, from around 1984 to the present state of missing) was appointed as the main agent of Non-party 1, and Non-party 1 was appointed as the main agent of Non-party 2, 3, 4, and Non-party 5 at that time. However, the board of directors did not elect the chief director.

E. At first, on May 14, 1999, the World Leading Association registered each domain name listed in the Schedule 1 through 4 of the domain name in the name of Defendant 1, who was an employee of the Canadian Federation, in the Internet domain name registration agency (Tucows. Inc.) located at the time of the debate in Canada. On February 13, 2001, the manager registered the Korean Internet address in the Pluri Seacom Co., Ltd., Ltd., a Korean Internet address registration agency (hereinafter the above Korean Internet address is referred to as the domain name if it is referred to as the above Korean Internet address together with other domain names), and thereafter, opened and operated the web site of the above domain name in the same name.

F. On March 4, 2003, some of the criminal offenders of the global leading Do group filed an objection against Nonparty 1 by asserting that “ Nonparty 1, who is the Do resident, was creating a national leading group by appointing him/her to his/her position, etc., as one of his/her own system.” On the ground of the above case, the global leading Do resident group was divided into the forces and opposing groups of Nonparty 1, and the directors of the global leading Do resident group were originally appointed Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 2 as the president on March 4, 2003 to oppose Nonparty 1. On the 30th of the same month, the global leading Do resident group was established by holding a board of directors of the global leading Do resident group and abolished the position of the Do resident on March 15, 2003, and the former Do resident on January 24, 199, hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Do resident group”).

G. According to the Articles of Incorporation of the Plaintiff’s Leading World Cooperative (Evidence A 2-1) enacted on the same day, the Plaintiff’s Leading World Cooperative will receive contributions from the Plaintiff’s National Leading Research Council, which was the representative of Nonparty 5 (which was not actually contributed), to comprehensively succeed to the rights and obligations of the Plaintiff’s Leading World Cooperative, and the Plaintiff’s Leading World Cooperative will temporarily continue to exist until the Plaintiff’s Leading World Cooperative succeeds to all its duties. From that point of time, some transfer, organization, training place, etc. against Nonparty 1, among the members of the World Leading Cooperative, join the Plaintiff Central Leading Cooperative and primarily acted in the name of the Plaintiff’s National Leading World Cooperative (which is referred to as “National Leading World Cooperative” on its web site).

H. Meanwhile, on March 22, 2003, Nonparty 1, the above non-party 5, etc., sent a move to abolish the position of the Do governor and reform the Do governor. On the other hand, on March 22, 2003, Nonparty 5, a director of the World Leading Federation, dismissed Nonparty 2, 3, and 4, a director of the World Leading Federation. On April 5, 2003, after the establishment of the Plaintiff Leading Federation, the above general meeting held the National Leading Group. The above general meeting abolished the Gu Do constitution and enacted a new Do constitution (Evidence No. 18) with the consent of 148 criminals and 87 master generalss, and the above general meeting enacted the articles of association (Evidence No. 3) of the World Leading Federation, which was the representative of the Do governor for the 4-year term of office of the Do governor, and appointed Nonparty 6 as the representative of the Do governor.

I. The Defendant World Leading Association established and operated its website in the name of each domain name listed in the separate domain name list 1 to 5 on the Internet. At present, there are about 60 National Leading Training Center belonging to the Plaintiff World Leading Association and about 100 National Leading Center belonging to the Defendant World Leading Association.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The status of the plaintiff and the defendants

On March 30, 2003, as a non-corporate foundation established on March 30, 2003, the Plaintiff’s Leading Federation was originally the same as the Plaintiff’s World Leading Federation, and the Plaintiff’s World Leading Federation succeeded to all the rights and obligations of the Plaintiff’s World Leading Federation. On the other hand, the Defendant’s World Leading Federation is an organization established on April 5, 2003 by Nonparty 1, focusing on some of the country leading manufacturers who operate it.

B. Claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff, an incorporated association, of the National Leading Law Research Council

The key point of each mark of the trademark rights, etc. of this case, registered by the Research Council of the Plaintiff, is "Guukdo". Defendant 1 registered the domain name in the attached list 1 through 4, including the word "Kukdo" or "kukdo" identical or similar to the above, and Defendant 2 registered the Korean Internet address in his name, "Guukdo" in the attached list 5 of the same list, "Guukdo", and each of the defendant 2 used the above domain names to use them as his own web site, and the defendant world leading franchise used the above domain name to publicize the defendant world leading franchise or engage in profit-making business through the above web site, and used them for goods or business identical or similar to the above plaintiff's designated goods, designated service business, designated service business, designated business, and the above defendants' act constitutes infringement of the trademark rights of this case and the unfair competition under Article 2 and Article 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 5 (c) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act or No. 5 of the defendants Act.

C. Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant 1

The plaintiff's World Leading Association and the plaintiff's National Leading Federation are the names of the domain names originally registered by the World Leading Association under a title trust with the defendant 1. The above defendant provided each of the above domain names to the defendant World Leading Association and used them. Thus, the defendant 1's act is an act violating the purport of the above title trust agreement. The above title trust agreement is terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the above defendant seeks implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of each of the above domain names against the above defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's leading law research council, as the above claim and selective, infringed the trademark right of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff's leading law research council, and at the same time constituted unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and sought against the above defendant for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of each domain name of this case.

3. Determination

(a) The legal status of the global leading federation and the global leading federation for the plaintiffs and the defendant world leading federation;

Although the Civil Act recognizes the withdrawal or dissolution of a member in the case of an incorporated association, it does not recognize the division of an incorporated association in the way that the members of an incorporated association are divided into two corporations, and continue to exist as an independent association and owned property belonging to the previous incorporated association. Therefore, such a legal principle also applies to an unincorporated association. The act that the members of an unincorporated association withdraw collectively from the association and form a new association by meeting the requirements for establishment of an association is naturally permissible in the principle of private autonomy, but in this case, the newly incorporated association is a separate entity from the previous association (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da37775 delivered on April 20, 206). In full view of the above legal principles and the facts recognized above, the legal status of the World Lead Cooperative, the plaintiffs and the defendant World Lead Cooperative is determined as follows.

(1) At first, the World Leading Federation was established under its bylaws for the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

(2) However, on March 4, 2003, non-party 5 et al., opposed to non-party 1 were to hold a board of directors of the World Leading Association and to elect non-party 2 as the president, and to establish the World Leading Association on March 30, 2003. The articles of incorporation set forth that the Plaintiff's World Leading Association will temporarily continue to exist until the Plaintiff's World Leading Association succeeds to its affairs, and to establish the articles of incorporation of the International Leading Association on April 5 of the same year with the focus on non-party 1, who is the Domining Association, as the Domining Association's member of the World Leading Association, which was the Domining Association's member of the World Leading Association, and which was the Domining Association's member of the World Leading Association, which was the Domining Association's member of the World Lead, which was the Domining Association's member of the World Lead.

(3) The Plaintiff’s leading law research council is an organization originally incorporated into an affiliated organization of the Plaintiff’s leading law research council under the former Do Constitution while continuing to exist before the Plaintiff’s leading law research council was originally established. Although Nonparty 5, etc., who was the representative of the Plaintiff’s leading law research council, at the time of withdrawal of the World leading law research council, abolished the former Do Constitution on March 30, 2003, and upon establishment of the Plaintiff’s leading law research council, stipulated in its articles of incorporation that the Plaintiff’s leading law research council would receive all property from the Plaintiff’s leading law research council (which did not actually contribute to the Plaintiff), and Nonparty 5, etc. did not go through legitimate procedures, and the abolition of the former Do Constitution was not effective unless the former Do Constitution was revised. Thus, the Plaintiff’s leading law still cannot be seen as a legitimate resolution of the Plaintiff’s leading law research council under the former Do Constitution by holding a resolution of April 5, 2003.

B. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

The defendants asserted that the above part of the plaintiff's claim is unlawful as the plaintiff's lawsuit filed by the non-representative 2, who is the chief director of the plaintiff's World Leading Federation. Thus, the plaintiff's World Leading Federation is a separate organization established by the non-corporate member originally from the World Leading Federation. As such, in a case where the non-corporate association claims the rights of the previous non-corporate association, alleging that the non-corporate association is established by the non-corporate member's establishment and that it is an entity having the identity with the previous non-corporate association, the above lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful merely because it is a lawsuit filed by the non-corporate member's only part of the non-corporate member's withdrawal at the time of withdrawal, and it is necessary to determine whether the organization composed of the actual withdrawing members has such rights (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45327, Feb. 24, 1998). Thus, the defendants' assertion that whether there is a representative or not is a non-corporate member's right to represent the non-corporate member's own decision.

C. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 by the Plaintiff World Leading Federation and the Plaintiff International Leading Federation

The facts of title trust with each domain name listed in the separate domain name list 1 through 4 are as recognized earlier, and further, we examine whether the above plaintiffs are entitled to terminate the above title trust agreement.

If the members of an association which is not a juristic person withdraw collectively from an association and form a new organization after meeting the requirements for establishment as an association, the newly established association is separate from the previous association. As seen earlier, the members lose their status as members of the association and their rights to the properties of the association, and the members who withdraw collectively from the previous association lose their rights to the properties of the previous association, and like this, the members of the newly established association sharing the properties of the previous association with the previous association or the members of the newly established association share their co-ownership (refer to the above Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3775 delivered on April 20, 206). Thus, in this case, the plaintiff, leading member of the world and the leading member of the plaintiff national federation established by the members who withdraw from the World leading member of the Association cannot exercise their rights to properties of the above plaintiffs as to each domain name listed in the separate list 1 through 4 of the domain name, which is originally the world leading member of the Association.

D. Determination on claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiff, an incorporated association, of the National Leading Law Research Council

The facts that the Research Council of the plaintiff, an incorporated association, registered the trademark rights of this case and the defendants registered or used each domain name listed in the separate domain name list are recognized as above. Thus, prior to determining whether the defendants' act of registering or using the above domain name constitutes an act of infringing the trademark rights of this case or unfair competition, it is examined whether the above plaintiff has the right to request the plaintiff to seek the cancellation of the registration of the domain name as stated in the separate domain name list, damages caused by infringement of trademark rights or unfair competition.

As recognized earlier, the above plaintiff was originally incorporated into the World Bureau's subsidiary organization under the former Do Constitution and was an unincorporated association by the World Bureau's legal authority, and as long as the former Do Constitution has not been legally amended, the above plaintiff's status is maintained as it is. In light of the above plaintiff's nature, the above plaintiff can not seek a prohibition of infringing the trademark right, etc. of this case against the original World Bureau's Federation, which belongs to it. Therefore, the National Institute of Leading Law cannot seek a registration of transfer or cancellation against the defendant 1, 2, or the original World Bureau of the Republic of Korea, whose domain name is recognized as identical to the original World Bureau's Federation of Guidance for the first time by the Do Constitution, against the defendant 1, and the defendant 2, or the original Federation of the World Bureau of the Republic of Korea, whose domain name is recognized as identical to the original Federation of Guidance for the National Bureau of Korea.

Ultimately, the above plaintiff has no right to seek the prohibition of the use of each domain name listed in the separate domain name list against the defendants. Thus, the above plaintiff's claim against the defendants for the prohibition of the use of the above domain name, and the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the registration of the domain name and the claim for damages on the premise that the above prohibition claim exists, are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)