1. The Defendant’s KRW 577,482 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 26, 2013 to December 24, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s representative director B’s registration of the Plaintiff’s representative director B, establishment of the Plaintiff’s exclusive license, etc. (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”).

A) The filing date/registration date: C/D registration number: Designated goods: Category 29 (Health Supplementary Foods, etc. extracted and processed from local alcohol ingredients of sugar) and Category 30 (Health Supplementary Foods, etc. containing health assistive Foods, etc. extracted from wheat) 2) the Plaintiff has the exclusive license granted from B on the instant registered trademark right, and sells health assist foods, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff products”), under the name of “F,” under which the instant registered trademark contains local alcohol ingredients of sugar.

B. During the period from the beginning of December 2013 to December 26, 2013, the Defendant displayed and sold the health auxiliary food called “NATURE TOL POLOOSOL” (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s implementation product”) using the mark (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant mark”) in the Internet duty-free shop shopping mall operated by the Defendant from the beginning of December 2013 to the end of December 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant sold the Defendant’s products, which are health-supporting foods belonging to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, using the Defendant mark identical or similar to the instant registered trademark, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s exclusive license regarding the instant registered trademark. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the profits that the Defendant sold the Defendant’s products to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Trademark Act, and the amount equivalent to the profits that the Defendant gained from selling the Defendant’s products to the Hyundai department store. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff