logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나36180
구상금
Text

1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the money which orders the payment below.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's main claim and rejected the defendant's counterclaim. Since the defendant filed an appeal only for the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the defendant's counterclaim.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, based on each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 1, did not conflict between the parties, or the entire argument Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 1, shall be deemed to have been

) On December 24, 2013, while operating a private teaching institute business in the trade name, the Defendant separated the private teaching institute and students from the first floor of the private teaching institute of this case from the private teaching institute of this case for the first and the second and second grade students. The Plaintiff provided lessons for the third and second grade students from the second floor of the private teaching institute of this case for the third grade students at the private teaching institute of this case, and provided lessons for other subjects, such as Korean language and science, except for the English and academic subjects for the second grade students at the private teaching institute of this case in consultation with the Defendant (hereinafter “Agreement”).

A) Next, the Defendant, on the first floor of the instant private teaching institute, operated the instant private teaching institute separately with the trade name “FAD” from the second floor of the instant private teaching institute. However, during the period from May 7, 2014 to one month, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff opened and operated the instant private teaching institute separately on the basis of the subject students and subjects, and thereafter, the instant agreement is to separately operate the instant private teaching institute, which is operated by the Defendant on the basis of the subject students and subjects, and thereafter, to operate the private teaching institute separately thereafter.

arrow