207 Gohap 53230 Implementation of the procedure for trade name cancellation registration

A Housing Construction Corporation

Law Firm Democratic LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Yoon Jin-young, Attorneys Gyeong-young

1. A construction company;

2. A stock company;

3. A DNA limited liability company;

4. Limited liability companies ABA development.

Attorney Kang Dong-chul, Counsel for the defendants

April 30, 2008

August 27, 2008

1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Defendant A Construction Co., Ltd. shall be kept and managed by the Commercial Registry of the Seoul Central District Court.

"A" or "A" or "A" or "Defendant State" or "A" or "A" or "A", respectively.

"A" in the name of the same corporate register (registration number No. 213970) "A" in the same division of corporate register

The term "A" in the same corporate register (registration number No. 003537)

"A" and "A" of the DNA limited liability company shall be construed as the same corporate register, etc. (the same corporate register, etc.).

"Procedures for the registration of cancellation on part A" among "A" limited companies for Abusan Development" (No. 004173)

Ed. each performance.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5:

가. 원고는 서울중앙지방법원 상업등기소 1984. 3. 14. 등기번호 제043044호로 본점 소재지를 서울 강동구 성내동 - - - ( 이후 서울특별시 내에서 여러번 변경되어 현재는 ' 서울 강남구 수서동 - - - ' 으로 변경되었다 ) 로, 설립목적을 부동산매매 및 임대업, 건축자재 판매업 및 위 각 항에 부대하는 사업일체 ( 이후 1984. 4. 3. 설립목적을 주택건설 사업, 부동산매매업 및 임대업, 건축자재판매업 및 위 각 항에 부대하는 사업일체로 변경하였고, 현재는 토목공사업, 전기 · 정보통신공사업 등이 추가되었다 ) 로, 상호를 " A住 宅建設 株式會社 " ( A주택건설 주식회사 ) 로 하는 설립등기를 경료하였다 .

B. Meanwhile, on January 24, 1969, Defendant A Construction Co., Ltd. had its location as the registration number of 00570 on the same registry number - (after the change to Seoul Gangnam-gu - - ‘Seoul' -). The purpose of its establishment was to be changed to civil engineering, construction, road packing construction, franchise installation, steel product manufacturing, sale and installation construction business and other special construction business, housing site preparation business, housing site reclamation business, real estate reclamation and lease business, housing construction business, export and import business and military supply business, housing construction business, civil engineering business, building equipment manufacturing and sale business (if it is added or changed over several occasions thereafter, 9). The construction business was changed to the A.S. Specialized Construction Co., Ltd. (i., Ltd.) the planning, sale and sale business of electricity, communication, machinery, fire-fighting facilities, and indoor facilities incidental thereto, (ii) the planning, sale business, including housing, commercial building, office building, and cargo distribution business, and (iii) the construction business.

C. On February 28, 1984, Defendant A, Inc., a corporation, changed its head office - - (after the registration of incorporation, - - - - 'Fiju Eup/Myeon' - - - on January 2, 2001, changed its purpose of establishment to - Seoul, Gangnam-gu - - 'Seoul,' to - 'Seoul' to - 'Seoul' to - - 'Seoul' to 'Seoul', tourism and recreation business, soil construction business, housing construction business, and supply business, etc. (at present, changed to 'Seoul' - - '), its trade name to 'Yidong-gu', changed to 'Yidong-gu' to 'Yuju-si' - - 'Yi' to 'Yju' on January 13, 1992.

D. Defendant ADC Co., Ltd.: (a) the Seoul Central District Court's Commercial Registry No. 003537, Sept. 18, 2001; (b) the Seoul Gangnam-gu-gu at the seat of its head office under the Seoul Central District Court's Commercial Registry No. 003537, Sept. 18, 2001; (c) the purpose of its establishment is housing construction

E. On February 18, 2003, Defendant Abusan Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Abusan Development Co., Ltd.”) had a trade name “Abusan Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Abusan Development Co., Ltd.”) with the registration number 004173 at the same registry number - Gangnam-gu Seoul - the purpose of its establishment is the housing construction business, housing supply business,

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Commercial Act, a prior registrant may file a petition for registration of the same trade name against the registrant, after registering a trade name identical or impossible to distinguish the registered trade name for the same business within the same Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Si, Si, or Gun. The Plaintiff, the commercial registry of the Seoul Central District Court, “A Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., A, A, A, A, ADC Limited Co., Ltd., “A”, “ADC Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and “ADC Limited,” all of which are “A” registered with the same registry, constitutes “A Construction Co., Ltd., A, A, A, ADC Limited,” and “ADP Limited,” and the Defendants’ business constitutes the same type of business as that of the Plaintiff’s construction business, and the Defendants are liable to cancel the part A” among the Defendants’ trade names registered with

3. Determination

The trade name registered by another person shall not be registered as the trade name of the same kind of business in the same Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Si, Si, or Gun (Article 22 of the Commercial Act). In case where the trade name registered by another person or the trade name that cannot be clearly distinguishable from that of another person is registered, the prior registrant may file a lawsuit against the subsequent registrant for the cancellation of such registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72081, Mar. 26, 2004).

In addition, Article 23 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that anyone shall not use a trade name that may be mistaken for another person's business for an improper purpose. Article 23 (2) of the Commercial Act provides that in case where there is a person using a trade name in violation of the provision of paragraph (1) of the same Article, a person who is likely to suffer damage or a person who has registered the trade name may file a claim for abolition thereof; therefore, a prior registrant of a trade name may file a claim for cancellation of such registration against the registrant after registering the trade name that may be mistaken for his own business even by the provision of this section.

However, if a prior registrant seeks cancellation of a trade name registration against a subsequent registrant pursuant to Article 23 of the Commercial Act, even if the trade name is similar in appearance, if a subsequent registrant does not use a trade name that may be mistaken for another person's business in a specific transactional relationship, or if it is found that there is no "illegal purpose", a subsequent registrant cannot request cancellation of the trade name registration. However, if it is proved only to use a trade name that is first registered within the same region and cannot be identical or accurately distinguishable from another person's registered trade name due to the same type of business, if it is proved that the latter registrant's trade name does not fall under a "trade name that may be mistaken for another person's business" or that there is no "illegal purpose", it can be said that the latter registrant's trade name is not identical or different from another person's registered trade name in a specific transactional relationship, it cannot be viewed that the latter registrant's trade name is identical or different from another person's registered trade name, see Article 22 of the Commercial Act.

In this case, first of all, the plaintiff's trade name "A Housing Construction Co., Ltd., and defendant A Construction Co., Ltd., and each of the above defendants' trade names are identical or impossible to be separated. First of all, it is obvious that the plaintiff's trade name and each of the above defendants' trade names are identical to the above defendants' appearance, name, and name. Furthermore, in determining the health stand, it should be determined by the appearance, name, or concept formed by the whole text constituting the trade name in principle. Thus, it is not possible to determine the identity of the above two trade names with only "A", and the plaintiff's trade name, except the above original and the defendants' trade name consisting of six Item "A Housing Construction Co., Ltd.," and "A Construction Co.,, Ltd., Ltd.," and "A Construction Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the defendant's trade name cannot be seen as similar to the defendants' trade name in the case of defendant A's two.

Next, with respect to whether each of the above defendants' trade names "A Housing Construction Co., Ltd., and defendant ADC Co., Ltd., and ADC Co., Ltd., and limited liability companies for ADB development are identical or accurately distinguishable from each other, it is obvious that the plaintiff's trade name and each of the above defendants' trade names are identical in appearance and name. Furthermore, as to the extent that each of the above defendants' trade names cannot be clearly distinguishable from each other, "A Co., Ltd.", the above defendants' trade name entered "A Co., Ltd.," while each of the above defendants' trade names entered "A non-stock company", "Housing construction," other than "A, with weak distinctiveness", is added to "Housing construction," but each of the above defendants' trade names cannot be seen to be distinguishable from each of the above defendants' trade names in light of the fact that D'NC or Busan development is added.

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff’s trade name and each of the Defendants’ trade names are identical or cannot be seen as identical to each other, each of the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants is without merit without any need to further examine.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Within the presiding judge;

Judges Yoon Jinari

Judges Park Jong-woo