1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the addition of some contents, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

B. The following shall be added to the portion added to the judgment of the court of first instance 12, 19 pages:

The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the Intervenor’s business discontinuance is merely a disguised business discontinuance, and that the Intervenor continues to engage in electronic and other sales business through the relevant companies even after the closure of the factory, in light of the Intervenor’s testimony and related materials confirmed by AD’s written testimony and the status of the operation of the relevant companies, details of funding support, representative director, etc.

However, the circumstances and materials pointed out by the Plaintiffs alone are difficult to conclude that the Intervenor’s business discontinuation is the most likely to prevent the Plaintiff’s workers from returning to the original state.

The main cause of the Intervenor’s discontinuance of the instant business is continuously decreasing the quantity of shares, while the labor cost seems to have deteriorated due to the continuous increase in personnel expenses.

In addition, the structural problems of electronic and other manufacturing industries, which are labor-intensive industries, have not been improved, and it seems that the intervenor could not have been able to secure the competitiveness of electronic and other manufacturing industries in Korea.

C Even after the closure of the Daejeon Factory, it is not manufactured in the Republic of Korea, and D and E have been manufactured with the Intervenor’s brand prior to the closure of the business in this case. As such, the Intervenor made a renewal of trademark right after the closure of the business in this case and granted a non-exclusive license to C.

The mere fact that D/E produces other brand attached by the Intervenor, the Defendant continues to conduct electronic and other manufacturing business through a separate company even after the discontinuance of the instant business.