logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016나50775
집행문부여의 소
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the judgment is as follows: (a) using the “Evidence No. 1-1-1-11-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance” as “Evidence No. 1 through No. 9”; and (b) except for the Defendant’s new dispute or additional assertion from the court of first instance to the court of first instance, as described in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not violate the duty of business hours restriction should prove the fulfillment of the condition that the Defendant violated the duty of restricting business hours, which is an omission duty under the decision of indirect compulsory performance. However, the Defendant’s sales of the Plaintiff’s merchants cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of restricting business hours. Even if the Defendant limited opening hours and provided internal employees with guidance, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had engaged in the Defendant’s business activities by entering the store in an abnormal manner and purchasing goods or purchasing internal employees or members of the company, or there was a cause attributable to such activities. Even if considering business activities, only the Defendant, one set of employees, and one set of employees, and 48 days totaling 48 days from the date on which only the Defendant, one set of employees, and 40 days from the date of purchase of goods, should be excluded from the date of the above duty of compulsory performance. (A) The obligee’s indirect compulsory performance order to enforce a decision of indirect compulsory performance as an omission obligation under Article 301(2) of the Civil Execution Act.

arrow