The defendant shall be innocent.

1. No person charged with the instant case shall use a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods;

The Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with E and around June 2006, which completed the application for trademark rights C and the registration of D trademark rights for the trademark “B,” and thereafter operated a restaurant in the name of “G” from the Chungcheong City.

A victim H, around September 2013, acquired trademark rights and franchise business operation rights to the above "B" from E, but trademark rights have not been registered but the above trademark rights have ceased to exist on February 15, 2017, and completed the I trademark registration again on the same day.

On July 2009, the Defendant terminated the franchise agreement with E, and expired the right to use the said trademark “B,” but the Defendant infringed the victim’s trademark right by attaching the trademark “G” similar to the victim’s trademark right at the same place from I to June 7, 2019, the date of the victim’s trademark registration.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence submitted to the court for determination:

On May 30, 2006, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) which was represented by E, with a franchise agreement of three years, and the Defendant paid KRW 6.5 million as a deposit to J around May 30, 2006.

From that time, the Defendant operated a restaurant with the trade name “G”.

In addition, in this Court, ‘J only receives the deposit from the accused, and there was no amount to be received every month.

If there is no particular problem even after the expiration of the general franchise period, the franchise contract is renewed, and if the franchise contract is terminated, the deposit remains after settlement, the deposit shall be refunded to the owner of the franchise.

“The lower court made the statement.”

It seems that there was a dispute between the defendant and J concerning the supply of logistics.