1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall perform the acts listed in the attached list.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court’s reasoning is that the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the part, except for the partial completion as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary part] Basic facts

A. (1) The part of paragraph (1) (2) (2) (2) of the first instance judgment to 3 pages 4) is as follows. (1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company incorporated for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of ginseng varieties and red ginseng products.

Defendant C was in office as the representative director of the Defendant Company from November 2014 to October 2016, and L was in office as the representative director of the Defendant Company on November 25, 2016 and is in office until now.

L filed an application for a color trademark of the D date and the registration of the E-Date trademark was made, and the defendant company attached the above trademark on September 2, 2015 and sold red ginseng products, etc. to the final right holder who was assigned the above trademark from L.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff did not infringe on the trademark right of the defendant company.

However, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s business by sending content certification and warning to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s customer, and by prohibiting the Plaintiff from posting and selling the Plaintiff’s products on the portal sites, including NAV, and Internet shopping mall.

Therefore, the above actions of the defendant company should be prohibited.

(2) Since C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was engaged in the above-mentioned duties that interfere with the Plaintiff’s business by intention or gross negligence, C, under Article 750 of the Civil Act and Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages arising from the above acts of interference with

At least 1. The Plaintiff’s loss due to the decline in sales is equivalent to the marketing cost paid while changing the name of the brand.