1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff applied for and registered service marks as indicated below (hereinafter “each service mark of this case”).

Category D E EF G 41 (Symbem Management Business, Hambem Private Teaching Institutes Management Business, etc.) of the date of application registration of the service mark HI

B. Around October 2009, the Defendants engaged in partnership with Nonparty J, and agreed to operate a private teaching institute as “L” as the service mark of “L.” The Defendants obtained the Plaintiff’s permission to use each of the instant service marks through J having a friendly relationship with the Plaintiff. The Defendants paid KRW 10 million when the Plaintiff visited the briefing session of the said private teaching institute.

(hereinafter “instant use contract”). C.

On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the content of the content that the Defendants demanded the prohibition of use of each service mark of this case, and the Defendants, around March 3, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of a written reply to the change of the service mark, as the Plaintiff had paid the Plaintiff a fee and used the service mark of this case with the permission granted, but the Plaintiff raised an issue regarding the period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, witness M's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that they were in partnership with J and private teaching institute business, and agreed to use each of the instant service marks for one year in the Plaintiff’s annual fee of KRW 10 million with the help of J and J, which had a friendly relationship with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and to enter into a regular contract and increase the user fee (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Defendants continued to use each service mark of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission even after the period of one year agreed upon under the agreement of this case. The Defendants’ act is not only an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s service mark right but also an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s service mark right.