Whether the duty of prohibition of competition is violated in case where a person is employed at a 200-meter radius from the date of transferring the business of the refined landing point and actually works as a business entity.

When a person who transfers all of the business of the fixed landing point is employed by the newly established landing point at a place less than 200 meters away from the business, and actually works as a business entity, it is a violation of the duty of prohibition of competition under the Commercial Act.

Article 41 of the Commercial Act

1 other than the two mobilization

Kim Il-il et al.

1. The defendants shall be prohibited from running the fixed meat-point business in Seongdong-gu Seoul for ten years.

2. The Defendants pay 100,000 won to the Plaintiffs.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The plaintiffs, around March 20, 1993, run a business by acquiring at KRW 25,00,000,00 of the lease deposit amount of KRW 18,000,00 with respect to the business establishment of Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which was managed by the defendants from the defendants, including all of the claims to return KRW 18,00,000,00 with respect to the business establishment and the business facilities. From June 19, 1993, the fact that the same kind of business with the trade name, "large land", "large land", which was located at a place less than 200 meters away from the above " Geum-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which was operated by the defendants, has

2. The defendants' spirits and the judgment as to them

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the above act was against the duty of prohibition of competition by the transferor of business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act while the defendants started the business of the above large-scale land. Accordingly, the defendants asserted that the above act was committed against the duty of prohibition of competition by the transferor of business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act. Accordingly, since the defendants are employed by Kim Dong-dong Kim-dong and work at the above "large-scale land", this is not a violation of the duty of prohibition of competition. Thus, the transfer contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants as mentioned above should be regarded as transferring the above "gold land" as an organic combination, unless there are special circumstances. According to the records and the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendants were acknowledged as being employed by the above Kim Dong-dong Kim-dong, but the above Kim Dong-dong's act was clearly established as the defendants' duty of prohibition of trade under Article 10 of the Commercial Act, and it can be acknowledged that the defendants' act of infringement of the duty of prohibition of trade under Article 10 of the Commercial Act or other business.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants shall not engage in the fixed meat business in Seongdong-gu in Seoul where the above "Yeongcheon-si" is located for 10 years, and since they are obligated to pay 100,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Oapuk-don (Presiding Judge)