The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around May 2018, at the store “E” located in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court No. D, the Defendant sold the Defendant’s sale of fake trademark as if it were a general sale paper. As a result, the Plaintiff paid a fine of KRW 2,00,000 in violation of the Trademark Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of the fine paid, the damages and consolation money, etc. that may hinder the Plaintiff’s livelihood.

B. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff asserted that, in the case of a formal trial on the case of violation of the Trademark Act, Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2018 High School Decision 2018 High School Decision 8060, the Plaintiff was unaware of the Plaintiff, but such assertion was not accepted, and the judgment became final and conclusive. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was the sale of the trademark of the above Monble as at the time of the purchase and the display and storage of the above Monice, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was subject to any deception during the process of purchasing the above asphalt. As long as the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that he had known of the fact that the Plaintiff was dissipated with the trademark "Monbus" in the process of purchasing the above asphalt, it should not be viewed that there was a proximate causal link between the Defendant’s sale, the sentence of fines to the Plaintiff, and the damages caused by the relevant fine, so long as the Plaintiff was displayed and stored for the purpose of selling the above asphalt and was subject to such criminal punishment.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance, which concludes with this conclusion, is justifiable, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable.