(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나32881

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나32881

주식인도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court below written the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The fifth fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “At the time of the establishment of the company in this case, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff or D at the time of the establishment of the company in this case as 5:5; “The plaintiff in the first sentence is sent a notice demanding the suspension of use of the trademark “G” to the company in this case and its home shopping or Internet shopping-related business customers from April 10, 2014 in the name of L, and the plaintiff sent the notice demanding suspension of use of the trademark “G” from May 16, 2014; “A evidence 10 to 25” in the third sentence is as “A evidence 10 to 25, 30”, respectively.

(b) 5 to 6 pages below the fifth decision of the court of first instance

According to the above facts, ① the company of this case was established in the process of importing and selling the product of this case with one half of the plaintiff and the defendant's share in the company of this case, ② the defendant recognized that the plaintiff or its shareholders at the time of the establishment of the company of this case had agreed 5:5 shares in the company of this case before the dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the company of this case becomes worse. The defendant argued that D et al. at the time demanded the company's transaction partner of this case to suspend sales of the product of this case and caused extreme risks to the company of this case, they would pay D et al. part of the sales profits of the product of this case as compensation for the use of the trademark of this case. However, in light of the defendant's statement contents, context, circumstances, etc. at the time, it is clear that the defendant made a statement about the shares shares shares first agreed at the time of establishment of the company of this case, and at that time D et al.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.12.11 2014누50387

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.11.28 2019고단1569

-서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017나2037346

-서울고등법원 2017.03.22 2016누67983

-수원지방법원 2016.10.11 2015가합71262