The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment on the main claim of second instance (excluding the Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment on indirect compulsory performance), and the judgment on the main claim of second instance (excluding the part as to the Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment on the main claim of second instance), and the judgment on the counterclaim of third instance, as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant phone number is subject to liquidation as a combination of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and cannot be unilaterally attributed to the Plaintiff. As long as the Plaintiff withdraws from the G Joint Law Office and reported the closure of business even without being transferred the phone number name, the instant phone number does not need to be used to indicate the said legal office, and as long as the Plaintiff used the instant phone number by transferring the right to use the instant phone number to the law firm B at a cost, the Plaintiff did not incur any loss even if the Plaintiff did not transfer the phone number name. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant bears the duty to transfer the instant phone number to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement with the Plaintiff at the time of transferring the phone number name to the Plaintiff. However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the use of the instant phone number and the instant name between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant’s failure to perform the instant agreement, and the progress of dispute over the right to use the name of the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff could not use the phone number used for business purposes for a long time due to the Defendant’s failure to the Defendant’s agreement, thereby causing mental damage to Defendant’s copyright management.