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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for each of the service marks as follows, and completed registration on March 13, 2003, and thereafter registered the renewal of the duration on March 12, 2013.

(1) The composition of the first registered service mark of this case: the registration number: the designated service under No. 0084516: as shown in the Schedule No. 1.

B. Registration number of the second registered service mark of this case: The designated service under Chapter 06, 08, 15, 16, 17, 02, 04, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 10, and 11

B. From 2001, the Plaintiff started to run the franchise business of retail stores, such as consumer goods and daily goods, with the trade name “Danuri”, and now the Plaintiff’s franchise store has reached 800.

C. From January 2, 2012, Defendant B and C jointly established Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Company) for the purpose of wholesale and retail business, which applied for E mark as a service mark (F-type service mark; hereinafter the Defendants’ service mark) while operating retail stores, such as consumer goods and living miscellaneous goods, etc., on the basis of the following: (a) Defendant B and C jointly established the E mark as a service mark (hereinafter the Defendant Company).

The Defendant Company operates H points from December 7, 2012 to 201 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gtel No. Gatel No. 1, and Defendant B and C operate the trade name of the retail store located in the above Young-si by converting it into “I” and using the Defendants’ service marks.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties. The Defendants’ use each of the registered service marks of this case and the service marks of the Defendants similar in terms of the concept of external name, which are identical to the designated service businesses of each of the registered service marks of this case.