The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the complainant was duly supplied with sediment leasing that the complainant manufactured and sold by the J and sold it to the consumers as it is, and thus, the complainant’s trademark was indicated, and there was no infringement of trademark rights.

In addition, the defendant used the trademark of the above U.S. company while selling the furniture imported from the U.S. company, and has partially modified the trademark.

Even if it was sold by the complainant, it was erroneous for the complainant to use the leased trademark which was manufactured by the complainant, and there was no intention to infringe the complainant's trademark right by using the trademark similar to the registered trademark of the complainant.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant's act of infringing the trademark right of G by using the trademark similar to the registered trademark in the signboards and price list of furniture stores operated by the defendant with intent to infringe the trademark right of the complainant. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The Defendant operated a furniture store, and sold other households than bit lease, and also used the indication of 'I' or 'K' in the name of the price list and the name of the household store of other households than bit lease such as mar and so on. 2) The trademark of the English tag used by the Defendant is added with the word 'L' under the word 'I', but the word 'L' is written relatively small and medium compared to the word 'I'. Rather, the upper part of the trademark of this case, like the registered trademark of this case, is stored in the above letter.

In addition, the words "K" in Korean language used for the signboard and name of the household store operated by the defendant shall be read as "M".