logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.02 2018나71832
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The primary purport of the claim is:

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a juristic person operating the department store business in the building, and the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) is a trademark called “F”, and the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) is a juristic person operating each business of manufacturing and selling cosmetics using the trademark called “G”.

B. On February 2017, the Co-Plaintiff A of the first instance trial (hereinafter “A”) entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiffs for the sale of cosmetics, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiffs. According to each franchise agreement, upon entering into a sales contract with a specific department store, the Plaintiffs first enter into a test construction with their own expenses, and subsequently claim the expenses for the part.

On the other hand, the plaintiff C is the subsidiary of the plaintiff B, and the plaintiffs formed a joint department with regard to the establishment of the cosmetic sales stores with F and G trademarks, and integratedly carried out two brand businesses.

C. On February 2017, the head of the business division H, who was in charge of the Defendant’s employee selection, etc. of the instant department store shop occupants, proposed to the Plaintiffs the shop occupants of the instant department store.

Accordingly, on the premise that the Defendant’s employees and the stores established by A who entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiffs are shop occupants in the instant department stores, etc. In the process, H presented to the Plaintiffs on February 8, 2017 the entire first floor plans of the instant department stores and purchased with a specific supplier only at the time of selling goods to a specific purchase customer.

It is suggested that the sale should be carried out in the form.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs decided to allow A to set up two stores in the first floor comprehensive cosmetics zone, and H to store A on March 1, 2017.

arrow