(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.02.17 2019고정257

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.02.17 2019고정257

업무방해

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as a shareholder of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.B, occupied the victim D’s store E-ho (hereinafter “instant store”) allocated from February 20, 2016 to December 17, 2018 by the said Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. from February 20, 2016 to the said Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., thereby preventing the victim from leasing the said store to another person.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the business of leasing the victim's store by force.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, D, after being assigned the instant store by the KGB in 2010, did not lease the said store. The Defendant started operating the instant store with F’s trade name outside the CG market and started operating the business at the instant store in around February 20, 2016, and continued operating the business at that place until now. D, upon receiving a claim against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant store based on ownership, the court can find the fact that D, on December 19, 2019, issued a judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that D, as the owner of the instant store, was the owner of the instant store.

The term "business of interference with business" means the whole of business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status.

In that case, D had the right to operate or lease the instant store with the allocation of the instant store by the owner of the instant store from B, who is the owner of the instant store.

Even if the company did not engage in a specific business activity or lease, it was engaged in the business or lease business.

shall not be deemed to exist.

According to the above facts of recognition, D does not have leased the store of this case by putting it off. Thus, D had leased the store of this case.

no longer than 100,00,000

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.03.31 2019고정429

-광주지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노1684

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.19 2018고단946

-제주지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나10916

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.20 2020가단5198307