1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 18, 2017 to December 22, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing electricity, medical appliances, and furniture, and is a trademark right holder of each of the following registered trademarks:

(2) The Plaintiff’s trademark is indicated in the same manner as “Plaintiff’s trademark” and, in total, referred to as “Plaintiff’s trademark”. The filing date of the mark / the registration date / the trademark registration number / the designated goods of October 23, 2001 / No. 0543523, Oct. 23, 2001 / No. 11: Electricity bed, non-medical electrical appliances, electricity bed, electricity bed, electricity bed, electricity bed, electric ruptures, ruptures, ruptures, electricity bed, ruptures, etc. of December 24, 2008 / December 29, 2009 / 08: 050-9: ruplicing temperature control devices installed in the heat, air conditioners installed in the heat, air conditioners for electricity bed and rupture temperature control devices, etc., Gap-4, etc.

B. On February 5, 2015, the Defendant concluded an agency contract with the head of Suwon-gu Co., Ltd., and was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution of the suspension of indictment on the ground of the fact that “the Defendant sold booms, which attached the trademark similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, from May 2009 to January 22, 2015, and thereby violated the Trademark Act.”

C. The marks used by the defendant are as shown in the attached Form.

(hereinafter) Each of the Defendant’s marks is marked in the same manner as “Defendant’s mark,” and, in total, is marked in the same manner as “Defendant’s mark,” and the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the entries or images of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 (including the number with each number;

2. Determination as to whether a trademark right has been infringed

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant used the Defendant mark identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark from May 2009 to the present day on the goods identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark as the designated goods of the Plaintiff’s trademark, or used it for the Defendant’s brick sales business.