logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.10 2014나49472 (1)
위약금 및 영업금지 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange from the trial to the defendants is all dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the underlying facts are as follows, except for the second to third to seventh parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Provisions] Article 18 (Duty of Confidentiality)

1. The employees of the defendant A or the defendant A shall maintain the operational manuals lent by the plaintiff and other trade secrets corresponding thereto, and shall not print, reproduce, lend, disclose, or disclose without the plaintiff's permission;

2. Defendant A shall also be liable for the breach of its duty under the preceding paragraph by its staff.

3. The obligations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall continue from the time of establishment of this Agreement until the date three years have elapsed after the end of this Agreement.

Article 36 (Termination of Contracts)

3. Defendant A shall return all relevant documents regarding the operation of the store provided by the Plaintiff.

4. The defendant A shall not transfer business contents or customers to a competitor during the term of validity of the contract or even after the termination of the contract, or impair or slander the credibility of the plaintiff;

E. The content of the instant contract related to the instant case is as follows.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant A operates “D” using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, did not return the back of the back-to-date provided by the Plaintiff, and committed an act of impairing the Plaintiff’s credit or slandering the Plaintiff by combining other franchise owners, etc., and continues to conduct the same business at the same place after changing the name of the business to Defendant B, who is the husband.

This is not only an act of violating Articles 18, 36(3), and 36(4) of the contract of this case but also an act of infringing the plaintiff's business rights.

Therefore, Defendant A is liable for nonperformance or tort, and such as the above.

arrow