1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court of the first instance stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the second instance, and the second to third to third to third to the 6th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the Seoul Central District Court, on the ground that the decision of recommending reconciliation was based on the defendant's deception and the defective exercise of the plaintiff's representative's right to represent, the 5th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 51th of the 5th of the 1st of the

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, “A is added, and the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the supplement to the corresponding part, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As to the part to be used by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, on June 12, 2012, entered into a contract with the Defendant for the acquisition of each service mark right listed in the separate sheet listed in the Defendant’s separate sheet listed in the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap49075, but did not pay the price. Therefore, the said contract was cancelled, and the Defendant brought a lawsuit seeking the restoration of the original state not to use each service mark listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet 1, which is identical or similar to each service mark listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet

2. On May 24, 2013, the above court legally cancelled each service mark right transfer contract between the original defendant on each of the service mark rights stated in the separate sheet No. 2 list between the original defendant on May 24, 2013 due to the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant carries out each procedure of cancellation of service mark right transfer registration for each service mark right listed in the separate sheet No. 2