1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 64(2) of the Additional Determination Trademark Act provides, “Where a trademark right of a corporation in the process of liquidation is not registered by the registration date of the completion of liquidation (where the liquidation work is not actually completed even if the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed, by the earlier date between the date on which the liquidation work is completed and the date on which six months have elapsed from the registration date of the completion of liquidation), the trademark right of a corporation in the process of liquidation shall be extinguished on the day following the registration date of the completion of liquidation,” and according to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the registration of the completion of liquidation for gold products was completed, and the trademark right of this case shall be deemed extinguished on December 7, 2010 following the date on which the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed.”

Therefore, as long as the trademark right of this case has already been extinguished, the renewal of the duration based on the existence of the trademark right cannot be made. Thus, even if the plaintiff applies for the renewal of the duration after the trademark right is registered by subrogation of the trademark right holder on behalf of the trademark right holder, the plaintiff's seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case cannot be an appropriate means for the plaintiff's remedy for infringement of rights because it cannot be an appropriate means for the plaintiff's remedy

3. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.