1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Number 1 of the pending service mark / filing date of the application / B/C 2: (General Trademark 3): Hospital business (excluding dental business), pathogen business (excluding dental business), medical consultation business (excluding dental business), medical consultation business (excluding dental business, hair-treatment business, terminal medical service business, and dental clinic business, dental clinic business;

(b) 1) Prior-registered service mark 1) registration number / filing date of registration / (A) of prior-registered service mark 1) / (registration date of service mark 1 A): The designated service business (general trademark c): four-day service, beauty consultation business, finger-to-saw beauty service business, cremation consultation business, beauty information service business, beauty care service business, beauty service business, beauty and beauty unemployment business : G2) registration number / filing date of prior-registered service mark 2) registration number / filing date of registration / (E/FB): The designated service business (general trademark c): four-day service, beauty consultation business, beauty and beauty service business, toilet and beauty service business, beauty consultation business, beauty service business, beauty service business, beauty service business, beauty service business, registration number 3 (a) of prior-registered service mark 3)/ All-day, beauty service right holder of registration and beauty service, business of beauty and beauty service, registration number 10/4 (a) of Go-to-day and beauty service, business of beauty and beauty service, business of 4 (b) G.

C. 1) On July 10, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a notice of opinion on the Plaintiff’s pending service mark on September 1, 2015, stating that “The instant pending service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) because it is identical or similar to the prior registered service mark and the marks and designated service business, and thus, cannot be registered.” (2) The Plaintiff submitted an opinion on the foregoing grounds for rejection on September 1, 2015, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the opinion of the Plaintiff.