1. As to the restaurant business operated by Defendant D in the Daegu Northern-gu F, G, and H, Defendant E is Daegu.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2012, K opened and operated the frequency of the trade name “C” (hereinafter “instant trade name”). On January 2, 2013, K took over the said store’s business from K from January 2, 2013, and operated the frequency of the instant store’s trade name (hereinafter “instant store”). From January 2016, K operated the instant store as the Plaintiff and the Dong business.

On September 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs comprehensively transferred the instant shop business to the intervenors.

B. Defendant D, from April 2019 to April 201, operated the trade name “M” in Daegu Northern-gu, F, G, and H, and Defendant E, from April 2019 to April 1, 2019, operated the frequency of the trade name “N” in Daegu Suwon-gu, I (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendant’s trade name”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Intervenor’s assertion and the Intervenor (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) were to operate the instant store from January 2, 2013, and obtain considerable personal guidance. However, the Defendants used the same trade name as the instant trade name for the wrongful purpose of causing the Plaintiffs to misunderstand their own business as the business.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Commercial Act or Article 4(1) and Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”), the intervenor sought compensation of KRW 2,00,000 per day of each violation as an indirect compulsory performance against the Defendants’ duty of omission. (3) Pursuant to Article 23(3) of the Commercial Act or Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, the intervenor sought compensation of KRW 26,732,06, and Defendant D for damages arising from the Defendants’ unlawful use of trade name without permission.

3. Requests for the prohibition of mutual use;