logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.06 2017나2018925
영업금지
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The grounds for this court’s explanation, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows, and the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used in addition to adding “a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” as stated in the following 2.2. As such, the grounds for this court’s explanation are as stated in “1. Basic Facts” and “a judgment on the claim for business prohibition of 3. Business prohibition” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 2. The "Franchis Business" in the last 5th sentence should have been revised to "Franchis Business" in the table No. 5 below to "Franchis Business" (hereinafter referred to as "Franchis Business"). Then, "Franchis Business Operators shall have failed to meet the requirements of this contract or confidential operating manuals which may be reasonably added from time to time, or fail to fulfill the terms and conditions of this contract in good faith, and in any of the following cases, they shall be deemed to have performed a default on obligations under this contract." In addition, the "FFF Co., Ltd.................................................................... were modified to "Franchis Business" in the main sentence No. 7th sentence to "Franchis Business" in the main sentence No. 7th sentence to "FM..................................."......................."

arrow