beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.05.03 2017가합13220

부정경쟁행위중지등 청구의 소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply);

(ii) the respective entry or video, as a whole, as set forth in subparagraph (ii) and the purport of the entire pleading

A. From October 2013, the Plaintiff is operating “D” (current trade names are E; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s frequency”) on the ground of the C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-SA

B. Around June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff followed the Defendant’s method of dealing with knife, how to knife each species, how to knife the language conference, how to see the knife the knife, how to see the knife the knife, and how to see the knife the knife the knife and the knife the knife the knife.

C. Around July 2015, the Defendant opened and operated “G” from “G” (hereinafter “Defendant’s frequency”) in F in PYA (hereinafter “Defendant’s frequency”).

2. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had abused his right of action against the defendant as a retaliation against the defendant's criminal complaint, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) various technologies related to the language society, rhym rhym, know-how, and franchise business strategies, etc., which the Plaintiff acquired while operating the Plaintiff’s cluster, are interests worthy of legal protection, individually or comprehensively, as the outcome created by the Plaintiff’s considerable investment and effort.

Nevertheless, under the premise of the conclusion of the franchise agreement, the Defendant denies the establishment of the franchise agreement even if the Plaintiff had been transferred the technology and know-how from the Plaintiff, and continues to use the know-how or technology for the operation of the pre-paid frequency, which is a fair commercial practice.