1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, with the trade name “D” from November 27, 2018, are operating a franchise business on stores with a key product of “Taf-type Black C-type Black C-WP” under the sign of “G (H)” in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu and F, while engaging in wholesale and retail business of raw materials for carpet, franchise business, etc.

B. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant is a legal entity that was established with the primary business purpose, such as Bable-related materials, raw materials wholesale retail, franchise business, etc. in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and the first floor Jho (hereinafter, as of August 19, 2014, changed to the location of its headquarters).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiffs asserted 1) On the first date for pleading, the Plaintiffs organized the cause of the instant claim into an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

The plaintiffs set up independent brand image of only the plaintiffs franchise business, by combining the elements, such as ① high-class GH H H mark design composed of white and black coloring coloring, ② front and protruding signboards and protruding signboards consistently using the cover of these ‘G H’ marks, ③ “Bow Sugar”, “Broe & Ta”, and “Fruiter Teea” with existing beverages, etc.