The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the case is the case where the Defendant, who is the right holder of the service mark, transferred the Plaintiff’s business right to the Plaintiff’s store to the Defendant as the principal lawsuit, and allowed the use of the service mark to the Defendant, but the Defendant asserted that, even after the period of use expires, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s right to the service mark by operating the service business, such as the provision of conference rooms and gathering spaces, using the Plaintiff’s service mark in mind, and sought compensation for damages based on the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition, as well as the Defendant’s prohibition of use of the Defendant’s mark based on the claim for prohibition, and sought compensation for damages amounting to KRW 10 million and KRW 5 million based on tort, as a counterclaim, by acquiring the Plaintiff’s business right to the Plaintiff, as a counterclaim, and sought the return of the amount of the money as to the payment of damages and its delay damages.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of the use of a mark and damages of five million won among the principal lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s remaining principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed. The Defendant appealed against the part relating to the claim for damages among the counterclaim.

Therefore, the object of this court's judgment is limited to the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim.

전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1, 2, 4, 을14와 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 ㈎ 원고는 2010. 5. 24.부터 서울 서초구 F, C에 있는 G빌딩 3층 302호를 H로부터 임차하여 ‘D’이라는 상호로 별지1 목록 기재와 같이 회의실과 모임장소를 대여해 주는 영업을 하는 사람으로 2010. 10. 11. 그 상호에 관하여 2011. 12. 19. 별지2 기재와 같이 서비스표 등록을 하였다.

㈏ 피고는 ‘E’이라는 상호로 원고와...