logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2019.04.18 2017가합11755
경업금지
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2015, the Defendant agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff 100 million won the beauty rooms (trade name: F; hereinafter “instant beauty parlors”) located on the first floor of the Tong-si E building operated by himself/herself, among which the Defendant did not prepare a separate contract.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that he/she assumed the Defendant’s wage liability of KRW 10 million for employees of the beauty art room of this case, KRW 80 million on December 14, 2015, and KRW 4 million after deducting KRW 4 million from the remaining transfer price on January 5, 2016. The Plaintiff asserts that he/she takes over the Defendant’s wage liability for employees of the beauty art room of this case. The Defendant discounted the transfer price of the beauty art room of this case.

Han 6 million won was paid and the payment was completed.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the instant beauty art room, and commenced its business from December 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the trade name and the signboard of the instant beauty art room from “F to “G”.

Around November 2017, the Defendant opened and operated a new cosmetic room with the trade name of “F” in the 1st floor D store and the 1st floor D store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 6, 7 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff takes over and operates the beauty art room of this case from the Defendant, and the Defendant thereafter opens and operates the beauty art room of the same trade name as that of “F” at a place less than 200 meters away from the cosmetic of this case.

Therefore, based on Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff seeks the prohibition of beauty practice against the Defendant based on which the transferor’s obligation to prohibit the competitive business.

3. Determination

A. The business under Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act refers to a functional property as an organic integration organized for a certain business purpose, and is functional as an organic integration here.

arrow