beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Party status 1) The Plaintiff is a law firm with the purpose of conducting the duties of an attorney-at-law, patent attorney, notary public, etc., and was dissolved by a meeting of partners on June 30, 2009. C is a person who served as a representative attorney-at-law from October 24, 1990 to July 12, 2004, and was appointed again as a representative attorney-at-law from February 25, 2009, but was appointed as the Plaintiff’s liquidator on June 30, 2009 (Evidence No. 1. 2). The Defendant worked as the Plaintiff’s member-at-law from May 28, 199 to September 30, 200 and was employed as the Plaintiff’s representative attorney-at-law from March 25, 2006 to February 25, 209 to March 13, 2009.
(A) No. 23, b.
On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the Plaintiff’s right of service mark as Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap49075, and did not pay the price thereof. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of transfer of the above service mark, and the Defendant did not use the above service mark, and sought the cancellation of the registration of transfer of the above service mark. 2) On May 24, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 24, 2013 that “The above service mark right transfer contract between the Defendant was cancelled due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant shall not use each of the above service mark, and the Plaintiff shall not use each of the above service mark and implement the registration procedure of cancellation on each of the above service mark rights.”
(However, the plaintiff's claim that each of the above service marks should not be used for the domain name and e-mail address of the defendant's Internet homepage was dismissed). The defendant filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 2013Na35018 against the above judgment, and the above appellate court on September 12, 2014 as follows.