1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the Intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration date/registration date of renewal/registration number: D/ E//F/F2 on November 3, 2009: Designated service business: The Defendant: (a) book publishing business, religious education business, kindergarten management business, communications lecture business, sound records recording business, choir operation business, choir preparation and proceeding business, document editing business, book printing business, editing business, printing business, religious gathering business, 4) service mark right holder:

(b) Composition of challenged mark 1: 2) Service business using service business: The plaintiff; religious group, profession, book publishing business;

C. On August 10, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm whether the challenged mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark (2016DaDa2412) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Tribunal”) on June 5, 2017, for which “the challenged mark is similar to the instant registered service mark,” and falls under “a mark indicating one’s trade name in a common way,” as prescribed by Article 51(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same), but since the Defendant used the challenged mark for the purpose of unfair competition after the registration of the establishment of the instant registered service mark, it does not constitute a case where trademark rights are restricted under Article 51(3) of the former Trademark Act, and thus, it constitutes the instant trial decision citing the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the Plaintiff’s trial decision

A. Of the challenged marks that do not fall within the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark, “G” symbolizes his doctrine by an ordinary famous expression, and only the Defendant’s side uses “G”.