지분금 반환
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from April 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to KRW 80,000 and KRW 30,000 among them.
1. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff, a member patent attorney of the fact of recognition, agreed to pay 30,000 won to the Plaintiff at the end of March 2016, and 30,000 won at the end of June of the same year, respectively, in addition to the annual interest rate of 24% if the contract was terminated.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). 【The ground for recognition” / [No. 2] A
2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant corporation is obligated to pay 80 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. As to the claim for cancellation, the defendant corporation asserts that the contract of this case, which is a mixed contract which is divided into a contract for the termination of the business and a contract for the sale of shares, was cancelled due to the plaintiff's violation of the duty of prohibition
However, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant Corporation agreed to terminate the partnership agreement on February 24, 2016, the effect of the agreement is concluded and there is no room to bring about the issue of the performance of the agreement itself. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff breached the obligation of prohibition of competition, the termination agreement cannot be cancelled again on the ground that it violated the obligation of
C. As to the claim of KRW 30,00,000, the Defendant corporation asserts that the Plaintiff must compensate for KRW 30,000,000,000, as part of the contract, because it sent a note to the effect that the Plaintiff cooperates with the customers of the Defendant corporation to maintain smoothly pursuant to Article 2(1) of the contract of this case, which states that “the Plaintiff has left his office to a patent firm C, and thus the power of attorney has changed to a patent firm C,” and that the power of attorney has transferred it unfairly to a customer through a new attachment and transmission, etc., thereby causing damage to the reduced sales in KRW 78,242,50, compared to the sales in 2015.
However, each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 12 is alone in the patent attorney market.