1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.:

A. The “stock company B” should not be used as a trade name;

(b) Appendix 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s trademark/service mark 1) is a company that produces and sells hydrogen case, coffee, tea, and bread, etc. in New York, Luxembourg Angegeles, etc., the Plaintiff is located in the New York State of the United States and mutually named “E.” The date of the application for the trademark/service mark 1 registered annually, the Plaintiff filed an application for the trademark/service mark as shown below with G registration number H on the date of registration Nos. 30(b), 35(c), 43(c), 30(b), 35(b), and 43(c) of G registration number I designated service business (b) on the date of registration of F on the date of the application for F registration of the service mark 1 registered as F. F (b).

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the trademarks of this case" is referred to as "each of the trademarks of this case". (b)

1) The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Establishment on November 12, 2013, hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(2) Around February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff used each trademark of this case on the website (K, etc.) similar to the Plaintiff’s official website (which did not have any contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, and published the Plaintiff’s official website, and the phone number and address of New York Branch indicated the Plaintiff’s official website, and published an article that the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s initial store care and cryp photographs and intended to operate its business in Korea. (2) Around February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant Company to suspend the act described in the foregoing Paragraph (1). The Defendant Company demanded the Plaintiff to conclude a regular contract, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, around April 17, 2014, issued a license agreement that grants the Plaintiff the right to produce, sell, and operate any product identical to those produced and sold by the Plaintiff using marks and signs similar to each of the instant trademarks in Korea (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The relevant contents are as listed below.

As of April 17, 2014, the instant contract was concluded.