logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.29 2014가합73940
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 100,750,143 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from October 8, 2013 to September 29, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From the end of November 2013, the Plaintiff produced a net stand by operating a personal business entity with the trade name “E” in Gwangju City D, and thereafter, produced the net stand from the Hahbuk-gun F to the trade name “G”, and supplied the net stand to the business entity, including H.

B. A corporation I is a business entity that produces net ties in the wife population J in the case of tolerance-si, and is competing with the Plaintiff.

Defendant B is the auditor of Defendant B, and Defendant C is the largest of Defendant B.

C. On August 23, 2013, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office run the Plaintiff’s business of generating wastewater containing heavy metal metal, etc. without obtaining permission from the competent authority in 2009 and around 2011, thereby violating the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act.

On October 3, 2013, the Gwangju Mayor filed a request for a summary order of KRW 3 million on the suspicion of “A” with respect to E, and around September 2013, the Gwangju Mayor issued an order to suspend the use of wastewater with respect to the wastewater discharge facilities, and finally ordered the order to close down the business. D around October 3, 2013, Defendant B written the title of “M” on the Internet Kafbook’s free bulletin board (L), and written the title of “M” on the Internet Kafbook’s O bulletin board (P), and posted the title of “R” on the Internet Kafbook’s free bulletin board (S), and written the article of “S” on the Internet Kafbook’s main text of each text, and written the false facts as if the Plaintiff’s act was detected in the net heavy metal that was produced and supplied to H. 1, 300,000,000,000 won, which was produced by the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B was found to have been found to have not been discovered from the Plaintiff’s 1.

arrow