1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed each application for D’s service mark “E” and the service mark “H” with the term “Class 41 (the book publishing business, Habem Private Teaching Institutes business, and Young Private Teaching Institutes business, etc.)” and is a person with the registered service mark right as “F registration number G and I” (hereinafter “each of the instant service marks”).

B. The Defendants agreed with J to operate the “L” in Boan-si and entered into a contract for the use of each service mark of this case with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant use contract”) around October 2009 through J with the Plaintiff.

The Defendants, around that time, paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff as usage fees for each service mark of this case under the instant use contract when the Plaintiff visited the briefing session for the opening of the said private teaching institute.

C. From October 2009, the Defendants operated “L”, which corresponds to the business of managing Young Institute corresponding to the designated service business of each of the instant service marks, in Boan-si from October 2009, and indicated the marks of each of the instant service marks inside and outside of a private teaching institute signboard and a private teaching institute building.

On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendants to prohibit the use of each service mark of this case, and around that time, the said content-certified mail reached the Defendants.

Accordingly, on March 3, 2016, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that the Defendants used each of the instant service marks with the Plaintiff’s permission, and that “it would be impossible to deny the fact that the Defendants had used each of the instant service marks, and agreed to promptly modify the Plaintiff’s opinions.” At that time, the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff.

E. At the time of the instant use agreement, the Plaintiff was reviewing the franchise business related to each service mark of this case, but thereafter did not commence the said franchise business until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), J. 1 of the first instance trial witness;