logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가합571188
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 2, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties and the franchise business operator 1) The plaintiff and C, who are legally married couple parties, from November 200 to November 200, operate the plaintiff's father D (at least 30 years, hereinafter "the deceased").

)과 함께 서울 성동구 E에서 분식점을 운영하면서 딸인 원고는 떡볶이를, 망인은 튀김을 만들어 판매하였다. 원고, C와 망인이 공동 운영하던 분식점은 ‘F’으로 방송에 소개되면서 유명하게 되었다. 2) 원고, C와 망인은 2002년 4월경 서울 서대문구 G으로 장소를 옮겨 ‘H’라는 상호로 분식점을 운영하였고, 원고와 C는 2003년경부터 함께 분식점 가맹사업(이하 ‘이 사건 사업’이라 한다)을 하였다.

3) On March 26, 2008, the Plaintiff and C established the Defendant Company (in total shares of 10,000 shares, the Plaintiff owned 3,00 shares, C, 7,00 shares), and transferred the instant business to the Defendant. 4) The Plaintiff was appointed as the auditor of the Defendant Company on March 26, 2008, but the Plaintiff was not involved in the operation of the Defendant Company after the establishment of the Defendant Company, and resigned on June 19, 2015.

On July 14, 2015, I, a partner of C, was appointed as the representative director of the defendant company.

B. The Plaintiff’s trademark and the Defendant’s trademark use license 1) is the Plaintiff’s registered service mark right holder of each trademark indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, based on the letter “J” or “K, as the end of the reduction of “H” (hereinafter “instant trademark”).

(2) After the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant business from the Plaintiff, the Defendant run the franchise business by using a mark, including the trademark indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 with the trademark right or the name thereof, and the Defendant operated the instant business using each of the marks listed in the separate sheet No. 2, such as “A” and “J” (hereinafter “Defendant mark”).

3. Meanwhile, around November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s actual operator to the Defendant is as follows:

The instant case is the same as the instant case.

arrow