logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.09.20 2018가합103993
경업금지등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. D는 2016년 7월경 천안시 서북구 E건물, F호에서 ‘G(쌍용분점)’이라는 상호로 김밥, 오뎅, 떡볶이 등을 판매하는 분식점(이하 ‘이 사건 분식점’이라 한다)을 운영하기 시작하였다.

B. The Defendant, from July 2016 to July 4, 2016, tried to perform the work of the windowping point of D from the husband of D to the Incheon around February 2017, began to operate the window dressing point of this case with the lead of operating the window dressing point of this case from that time.

C. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the premium for the lease of a commercial building (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”) with D to take over the instant subdivision points from D in KRW 50,000,00,000, for the premium for the instant subdivision points.

Under the above contract, "Lessee" was stated as D, its agent as the defendant, and "new lessee" as the plaintiff, and as a special agreement, "Lessee shall not be allowed to engage in the same type of business in the nearest place."

On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff completed its business registration and started to operate the window of this case from that time.

Meanwhile, between the Defendant and I on October 18, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract for acquisition or transfer of the right (facilities) with I to acquire the “J” located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan City C from I, and began to operate the said branches since November 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 10, 12, 15 through 17, 20, 22 and 25 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the transferor under the contract of acquisition by transfer of the instant case is the Plaintiff, the transferee is the Plaintiff. However, the division of the instant case is practically operated by the Defendant, and the actual transferor is deemed the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, after transferring the instant subdivision point to the Plaintiff, set up and operates another subdivision store in the neighboring wife, which is in this case.

arrow