logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.01.25 2015가단34866
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant shall not engage in beauty and beauty business in the real estate listed in the separate sheet by April 7, 2024.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant operated the skin management room (hereinafter “instant skin management room”) with the trade name “D” in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City C and 103.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the instant skin management office from the Defendant with a premium of KRW 75 million, and paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 30 million, intermediate payment of KRW 35 million, and KRW 65 million.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of business regarding the management office of this case (hereinafter “instant contract”), and prepared the agreement for the transfer of rights (facilities No. 1, No. 1, and No. 2, “the instant contract”). The scope (facilities, etc.) of transfer (facilities, etc.) of the instant contract was entered in the column, and the name of the signboard (D) was entered into at the bottom for the next two years.

C. On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant skin management office and its facilities from the Defendant and operated the instant skin management office.

Around June 8, 2015, the Defendant commenced the business of “E” prior to the instant store, which conducts physical management, etc. at approximately 1.5km away from the instant unit management office.

E. On December 8, 2015, the Jeonju District Court 2015Kahap100043, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional injunction, etc. against the said E’s business, and the said court rendered a provisional injunction with the purport that “the Defendant shall not engage in beauty and beauty business at Jeonju-si.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 7, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, Gap evidence 4-2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for prohibition of competition and disposition prohibition

A. Whether the contract of this case constitutes a "transfer of business" under the Commercial Act or not refers to a functional property as an organic integration organized according to a certain business purpose, and this refers to the organic property mentioned above.

arrow