All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The summary of the case asserts that the defendant's act of causing mistake and confusion as if the plaintiffs were holding companies by using the mark "M", which is commonly included in the plaintiffs' trade marks widely known in the business field concerned, to the defendant's trade name and business, constitutes an unfair competition act that causes confusion as to the business entity under Article 2.1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act"), and based on Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the defendant's act of causing confusion as to the defendant's business entity constitutes an unfair competition act that causes confusion as to the plaintiffs' business entity under Article 2.1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act"), prohibition of the trade name of "E" corporation, the signboards related to the plaintiffs' business of "E"

The first instance judgment dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that the defendant's use of "M" business mark does not constitute an unfair competition act.

The plaintiffs appealed against this and filed an appeal.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance and the addition of this case is as follows 8.3. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) although considering the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff in this court, it is hard to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance, except adding the judgment that it is difficult to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant's use of business mark does not constitute an act of unfair competition under Article 2. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main

3. The part used in the judgment of the court of first instance

C. Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that “The name, trade name, mark, and other business of another person widely known to the Republic of Korea” is “the other person’s business.