beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff
C. The trademark registration of “D” was registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and exported products, such as the need to affix the said trademark, to the Jungdong countries, such as the U.S.A., and when the Plaintiff and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) enter into a contract for continuous supply of goods on November 2005 and requested the Plaintiff to produce them to E upon receiving orders from foreign customers, they would purchase raw materials and produce packings, and then trade them through the shipping company designated by the Plaintiff, and then dispatch them to a foreign customer through the shipping company designated by the Plaintiff, and then receive the payment from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a director of E and took overall charge of foreign business affairs.
B. Around January 2, 2007, the Defendant and E issued a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 ($25,807, Busan District Court Decision 2947, Busan District Court Decision 201Da2947, Mar. 10, 201) of each fine of KRW 2,00,00, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s trademark right by manufacturing and selling a fence 1,910 ($25,807, hereinafter “unified”) on which the trademark other than D is attached, in accordance with the orders of the trade company of the Emift, and around that time, the said summary order became final and conclusive.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 10, 21 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) continues to trade with E, and the Plaintiff exported the fence with D trademark in UAE G, etc. At the request of the EF trading company, which is the customer of EAE, G was aware of the fact that he manufactured and sold the fence attached with the F trademark at the request of the EF trading company, which is the customer of EAE, demanded compensation of KRW 100,000,000,000, when the fence of the F trademark similar to D was imported into the EAE market through E, which is the Plaintiff’s main producer.