1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on October 25, 2016 for the purpose of attracting foreign patients, medical tourism, etc., and the Defendant is a company established on February 25, 2015 for the purpose of attracting foreign patients, providing business consulting, and providing related services.

B. The Plaintiff, on the Plaintiff’s website (C), page for the Plaintiff’s publicity, and Lone Starg, posted the Plaintiff’s trade name in English, “,” and “the instant trademark” (hereinafter referred to as “instant trademark”) as follows, and used the mark as its own business mark.

Plaintiff

The instant business mark, which asserted the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as a whole, constitutes "a result made with considerable investment or effort" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention Act").

The Defendant used the instant business mark without permission on its own website, Google, quota (htps:/www.quiora.com; n.e., North U.S. regional social network response service) and caused confusions with the Defendant as if the Defendant was related to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's act constitutes an act of unfair competition as mentioned above (k) and constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act. In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

The Supreme Court interpreted Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act as to the primary claim without permission to use the outcome constructed by the competitor's considerable effort and investment for one's own business in violation of business ethics or fair competition order, thereby obtaining unfair profits by taking advantage of the competitor's effort and investment and infringing on the competitor's interests worth legal protection.