1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3.

The plaintiff registered the "E" with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as a trademark concerning D's summary, etc. and exported products, such as the need to affix the above trademark, to the Jungdong countries, such as the U.S. E., and when the plaintiff and the corporation (hereinafter "B") enter into a continuous contract for the supply of goods on or around November 2005 and requested the plaintiff to manufacture them to B upon receiving orders from foreign customers, they have been engaged in transactions in a manner that the plaintiff sent them to a foreign customer through a shipping company designated by the plaintiff and received the payment from the plaintiff.

B. At around 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to pay USD 12,000 to the KamaL AMIN LD. (KMAL ATRD.) by importing merchants of the wall.

C. On the other hand, B manufactured and sold a fence with a trademark “F” in the above trading company at the request of the Esloft trading company of the U.S. Esloft, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, who became aware of such fact, agreed that B would not manufacture and export a fence with a trademark attached to a similar trademark, which constitutes an act infringing the Plaintiff’s trademark right as an act of selling a fence attached with a similar trademark.

Cambodia trading company demanded that the plaintiff compensate for USD 100,00 as the plaintiff suffered losses because the fence of F trademark similar to E was imported into the UAE market due to the lack of consumer awareness about the fence of E trademark and the existing market order was damaged due to confusion. On August 23, 2007, the plaintiff demanded that the plaintiff compensate for USD 10,000.