logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가합722
판매금지 등
Text

1. The defendant shall have the defendant or a third party use any of the following methods at the stores listed in the attached Table 1:

Reasons

Basic Facts

around June 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s carp business D have leased 403 of the B (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) and sold coffee with the trade name “G” (final term of lease: from April 10, 2014 to April 9, 2015) and “G”.

On March 29, 2014, D transferred to the Plaintiff the right of lease regarding KRW 403 on premium 24,500,000.

Since April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff sells coffee beverages and beverages listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “other beverages”) with the trade name “H” in the instant shopping mall 403 from April 10, 2014 to the present day.

On April 29, 2014, the Defendant leased the attached list 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) from I to “from May 30, 2014 to May 30, 2016,” among the instant stores, the Defendant sells eight beverages (ice, ice, Green, Redmond, Redmond, Red Domp, Red Domp, Red Domp) among other drinks under the trade name “J”.

The Intervenor is a managing body under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings”) composed of the sectional owners (62 stores) of the instant commercial building.

The intervenor enacted the management rules on June 9, 2001, and revised the management rules on September 29, 2003 and June 21, 2006.

On the other hand, "store owners and lessees shall not engage in the same kind of business (Article 10 subparagraph 8)" was newly established in the management rules on September 29, 2003.

An intervenor against K which is a sectional owner under Article 10 subparagraph 3 of the Management Rules (the management expenses necessary for the maintenance and management of the virtual building, etc., user fees, and the obligation to pay the long-term repair appropriations) against K which is a sectional owner under Article 212 among the instant commercial buildings in this Court on September 29, 2005, 7,683.

arrow