1. The defendant,

(a) The marks listed in the separate sheet 1 are each of the products and their products listed in the separate sheet 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s trademark/service mark 1) is a company that produces and sells hydrogen case, coffee, tea, and bread, etc. in New York, Luxembourg Angegeles, etc., the Plaintiff is located in the New York State of the United States and mutually named as “D...” On the date of the application for the trademark/service mark 1 registered annually, the Plaintiff filed an application for a trademark/service mark as listed below, and registered by the Plaintiff on the application date of F registration No. 30(b), 35(c), 43(c), 30(b), 35(b), and 43(c) of G E E-registration number designation service business (b) on the date of registration of F as of the date of application for F registration of the service mark 1 registered as the date of application for F.

(E) The trademark of this case is referred to as the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the trademark of this case is referred to as "the trademark of this case").

1) The Plaintiff and Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) are incorporated on November 12, 2013, representative director I, and director I, hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(2) Around February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff used each trademark of this case on the website (K, etc.) similar to the Plaintiff’s official website (J) without any contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, and published an article stating the Plaintiff’s official website, telephone number, and address, the New York Branch’s introduction photograph, the Plaintiff’s initial store schep and schep photographs, and the Plaintiff’s initial store schep, and the Plaintiff intended to operate a business in Korea. (2) The Plaintiff demanded the non-party company to suspend the act indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1, and the non-party company demanded the Plaintiff to conclude a formal contract, and the Plaintiff and the non-party company, around April 17, 2014, provided that the Plaintiff and the non-party company, using a mark similar to each of the instant trademarks, grant the Plaintiff the right to produce and sell products identical to those produced and sold domestically, and to operate a store (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The relevant content is described below, if any, as follows.

As of April 17, 2014, the instant contract is concluded by the following parties.