The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.

1. The reasoning that the court should explain this part of the premise is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

On November 20, 2013, the Defendants registered the business under the trade name of “E” (hereinafter “E”), which is the same or similar trade name as “L” (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) as the Plaintiff’s trade name, and used a trade name that may be mistaken for the Plaintiff’s business for unjust purposes by running the business of the net store affiliated with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 23 of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the use of the Defendants’ trade name with respect to the business of the net member shop operated by the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the third floor.

In addition, the defendants seek prohibition against the defendants from using the above service mark for signboards, printed materials, containers, packaging and advertising advertisements, or selling goods using the above service mark, as they infringed the plaintiff's right to use the service mark of this case registered as the service mark of this case.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserts to the following purport:

Plaintiff

The business name and the service mark of this case, which the Defendants entered into with F and G, are the property of the partnership under the instant trade agreement entered into with F and G. Since the Plaintiff was entrusted only with the name of F and G’s property from its members, such as F and G, the Defendants are entitled to use the Plaintiff’s trade name, the Defendants’ trade name, and the service mark of this case.

Furthermore, on June 2014, the Defendants established a corporation as S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and run the instant store business with a separate name and service mark called “T,” and the Defendants, as an individual entrepreneur, as the latter.