1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a party’s position 1) From June 11, 2015 to June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff is a car page (hereinafter “Plaintiff car page”) with the trade name “E” as from June 1, 2015.

(2) From June 2016 to September 2018, the Defendant operated the carpet (hereinafter “Defendant carpet”) with the trade name “G” in subparagraph (F) of the same year from June 2016 to September 2018.

B. The Plaintiff Carbook, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Carbook, has marks such as marks, store appearance and design, attached type Ma New Markets, present type Ma New Markets, beverage posters, distribution design, and Ma Newcom, such as marks indicated in the list, store size and design, attached type Mada, presenting type Madabook, and Defendant Carbook has the Defendant Carbook “Attachment 2” with marks such as marks indicated in the list, store size and design, attached type Mada P New Markets, presented type Mada Pack, beverage posters, distribution design, and Mada Newcom.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 18, 19, 24 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary cause of claim - The Plaintiff’s mark, store appearance and design, attachment-type mail new boards, presentation-type mail new plates, beverage posters, distribution design, and met Newcompeting (hereinafter “Plaintiff carpeting”) such as the Plaintiff’s mark, store appearance and design, and attachment-type mail, beverage posters, distribution design, and metre Newcoming (hereinafter “Plaintiff carpeting”) are characteristic factors that form a creative atmosphere distinct from the Plaintiff’s other Carpeting.

However, the defendant has operated the defendant Kafe by reproducing the above characteristic elements corresponding to the plaintiff's outcome without permission.

As above, the Defendant’s management of a camera by imitateing the Plaintiff’s outcome is a fair commercial practice or competition order with the Plaintiff’s considerable investment or effort.