1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered service mark (a evidence 3) 1)/ the filing date of the instant registered service mark (a evidence 3)/ the registration date/registration number: On September 18, 2014, 30897/No. 5, 2015: Building basic construction business, building interior construction business, building remodelling business, building waterproof and damp-proof construction business, building repair business, building restoration business, building construction business, building construction business, interior decoration business, apartment building construction business, apartment building construction business, installation and repair business of electric installations, specialized construction business, housing construction business, classification of service business category 3 designated service business;

(b) Composition of prior registered service mark 1) A/B/C 2: 3) Persons entitled to registration under category 37 of the designated service business category, such as furniture repair business, furniture management business, interior decoration business, office equipment installation and management business 4): D.

C. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the instant registered service mark constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) in relation to the pre-registered service mark against the Plaintiff, who is the service mark holder of the instant registered service mark; and (b) the registration should be invalidated.

2) The registered service mark of this case is similar to a prior registered service mark and its appearance, but its title is identical or similar, so the overall mark can be deemed similar to each other. There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the designated service business of both the two service marks are identical or similar. Thus, the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act and its registration should be invalidated. The registered service mark of this case should be seen as falling under Article 7 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act. The defendant's trial decision of this case cited the above appeal was rendered on September 21, 2016.

【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, and entries and arguments in Gap's 1 through 3 are made.