2013Kahap762 Disposition of Prohibition of Interference with Business

○○○○○○○○

This representative director**

Manager* *

Law Firm Hel, Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. ○○;

2. Du○○;

April 19, 2013

1. 피신청인들은 2013. 4. 20. 06 : 00부터 24 : 00까지 ' 서울 강남구 ▩▩▩ * * * * - * 에 있는 ○○○○○○ 건물 주위의 별지 도면 ( 생략 ) 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1의 각점을 순차로 연결한 선내 부분 ' 에서 장송곡을 틀거나, 제3자로 하여금 장송곡을 틀도록 지시 또는 원조하여서는 아니된다 .

2. The applicant's remaining applications are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The respondent on April 20, 2013: 06:0 to 24:00:0,000,000,000

each act listed in the list, or instruct or assist a third party to do such act.

subsection (1) of this section.

2. Where the respondent violates the order under Paragraph 1, the respondent shall each commit a violation against the applicant.

The sum calculated at the rate of KRW 20,000 per time shall be paid.

1. Summary of the petitioner's assertion

가. 서울 강남구 ▩▩▩ * * * * - * 내지 * 에 있는 예식장 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 예식장 ' 이라 한다 ) 은 주식회사 ■■■■ ( 이하 ' ■■■■ ' 라 한다 ) 가 운영하다가 현재는 신청인이 운영하고 있다 .

나. 피신청인들은 ' 자신 또는 그 지인들이 ■■■■에 대하여 채권을 가지고 있다 ' 는 전제에서 ' ■■■■의 채무를 신청인이 책임져야 한다 ' 고 주장하나, 신청인은 ■■■■와 아무런 상관이 없으므로 ■■■■의 채무를 신청인이 책임질 이유는 없다 .

C. Nevertheless, in order to accomplish his claim, the respondent is conducting a religious demonstration around the instant wedding hall. Accordingly, the applicant is seriously damaged his honor and credit, as well as the operation of the instant wedding hall.

D. Therefore, prior to the judgment on the merits, it is necessary to request the respondent to order the respondent to prohibit demonstration in advance.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, since the place of an assembly and demonstration has an important meaning in relation to the purpose and effect of the assembly and demonstration, anyone can freely decide on the place of the assembly and demonstration in principle, but the freedom of assembly and demonstration is effectively guaranteed. Therefore, unless it is justified for the protection of other legal interests, it is not allowed to separate the place of the assembly and demonstration from the object of the paragraph.

In addition, the freedom of assembly, demonstration, and expression shall be guaranteed as much as possible as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but such fundamental rights under the Constitution shall not be infringed upon any other person's rights.

Even if the purpose of the demonstration is justified, it has the limitation that the method and means of expression should be appropriate.

B. We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

1) First of all, as to "the part for which the prohibition of acts listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list" is sought to prohibit the Respondent from "all acts of widely expressing his or her opinions", and (1) considering that the act of widely expressing his or her opinions by the participants in the assembly and demonstration is naturally incidental to the assembly or demonstration, and in principle, it is not allowed to separate the place of the assembly and demonstration from the object of the port, and in principle, the Respondent's assertion and the materials submitted by the Respondent are insufficient to prove and prove that the Respondent can prohibit the Respondent from participating in the assembly or demonstration in the vicinity of the instant wedding hall (for example, the Respondent without permission or all acts of completely blocking his or her access to the instant wedding hall's employees or customers).

(2) Of the phrases used by the respondent during an assembly or demonstration, there seems to be only a strong expression of opinion by the respondent. ② The remaining phrases also come to a little degree of harm to the reputation or credit or interference with business of the applicant, even if considering the relationship between the applicant and its operator, the specific expressions used by the respondent, the circumstances leading to the dispute in this case, and other circumstances, it is difficult to say that the applicant's submission of such statements in advance can not be allowed to prevent the use of the wording itself from being used by the respondent, as long as it is not enough for the respondent to explain that the phrase "the sound itself can be prevented from being used by the respondent" (other than whether the respondent will be liable for damages later) and that there is no other evidence to prove that the assembly or demonstration in this case is not a sufficient level of harm to the applicant's reputation or credit or interference with business.

However, in this part of the claim, "the part that seeks to order the respondent to prohibit the act, etc. in the vicinity of the instant wedding hall" is clear that "the act of causing confusion in the instant wedding hall or the appraisal of the customer may feel," without relation to the noise level, it would result in considerable serious damage to the reputation or credit and interference with the business of the applicant. Therefore, the preservation right is recognized, and the necessity for the preservation is also recognized when comprehensively considering all the circumstances that are recognized in full view of the purpose of the record and examination.

Furthermore, although the applicant also seeks a "decision of indirect compulsory performance" on the decision of provisional disposition as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, the data submitted by the applicant is insufficient to prove that the respondent is highly likely to violate the order in the provisional disposition despite the above decision of provisional disposition. Therefore, the applicant's application for indirect compulsory performance is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the application of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining application is dismissed as it is without merit.

Justices Kim Jae-ho et al.

Judges Lee Jin-chul et al.

Judges Yoon Young-ia