(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2014가단524792

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 2016.06.14 2014가단524792

위약벌

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person whose marital relationship was divorced on or around April 2010 by marriage with F (hereinafter “the deceased”) who died on September 27, 2013, and on or around April 1973. The Defendants are children born between the deceased and G, the former wife of the deceased.

The Deceased died on September 27, 2013, and H born between four Defendants and the Plaintiff becomes the deceased’s heir.

B. The Deceased’s operation of the restaurant and the registration of service mark related to the restaurant. 1) The Deceased had been operating a restaurant in the name of “L” in the name of “L” on the part of J and K-based building in the city of Ghana prior to his marriage with the Plaintiff. After his marriage with the Plaintiff, the Deceased has completed his business registration under the name of the Plaintiff and operated the said restaurant jointly with the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Deceased filed an application for registration of the establishment of service mark right to the trade name “L” with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on November 1, 1994, and on April 13, 2009, the Deceased transferred the right to registered service mark right to the said service mark to Defendant B, his/her his/her his/her his/her father’s his/her his/her father, as the deceased.

C. On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of divorce and consolation money and property division claim against the Deceased on March 26, 2009, under which the deceased and the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant at the divorce case. On May 14, 2010, conciliation was established between the Plaintiff and the Deceased as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

1. The plaintiff and the deceased are divorced.

2. The Plaintiff and the Deceased agree on the division of property as follows.

paragraphs (1) through (4)

Aviation Omission

E. The Deceased obtained permission from Defendant B to operate his business using the service mark “L” for the Plaintiff or one person designated by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was unable to use the service mark as the Deceased failed to do so.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.08.11 2015가단10091

-서울고등법원 2020.07.16 2019나2026968

-서울행정법원 2018.11.08 2018구합2100

-부산지방법원 2015.09.10 2014가단100180

-서울행정법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015구합62200 판결