손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.
1. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of rehabilitation claims and voting rights against the Defendant. The first instance court dismissed the request for confirmation of voting rights and accepted the entire claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claims.
Accordingly, the defendant appealed against the part of the claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim, so this court's judgment is limited to the part of the claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the manufacture, import, distribution, and storage service of petroleum and petrochemicals, including crude oil, natural gas, and LP, and trading business. B is a person who operates a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name “D” from the wife population C at the permissible time.
B. On November 20, 2018, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, B received a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures by the Suwon District Court 2018dan10052, and the said court determined B as a legal administrator without appointing a separate administrator.
(1) The Defendant’s legal administrator B constitutes the debtor himself, and thus, refers to B as the debtor for rehabilitation (hereinafter “Defendant”).
On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a petroleum product supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to supply petroleum products produced and sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, approve the use of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “E” and support various relevant facilities. The Defendant supplied petroleum products from the Plaintiff according to the instant contract and started the instant gas station business.
Article 2(5) of the instant contract provides that “The Defendant shall directly purchase petroleum products sold during the contract period from the Plaintiff,” and Article 14(1) of the instant contract provides that “The Defendant may cause mistake or confusion with the Plaintiff’s products other than the Plaintiff.”