beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant is the air-conditioning point from Bupyeong-gu Incheon to May 10, 2026.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the facts of recognition and its assertion is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraphs 1 and 2, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The abbreviation of the board shall comply with the first instance judgment, and the "D Co., Ltd." shall be "the head office of this case".
The reason for this decision is that the court's decision on the claim for prohibition of competitive business is located in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the "real estate stated in the attached list" is located in the 6th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, which deleted "real estate and real estate stated in the attached list."
1) As long as an order to prohibit competition in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City is issued, it is not necessary to separately state such order. Except for those, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (j) is the corresponding part
3.(a)
-
B. Inasmuch as the description is the same, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (B) Determination on the claim for discontinuance of the business is based on the relevant legal doctrine, an agreement on a transfer of business, or an obligation not to engage in the same kind of business on the ground of a third party under Article 41 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, if the transferor creates a business in violation of the duty of omission, it is required to discontinue the business in order to resolve the violation of the duty of omission, and leases the business to another person.
As long as the substance of the business remains or is transferred, the violation of the duty is not resolved, so it is also possible to prohibit the lease, transfer, or other disposition of the business to a third party in addition to the prohibition of the business of the business transferee in the manner of compulsory performance.
(Supreme Court Decision 96Da37985 delivered on December 23, 1996). 2) examine whether the Defendant, even after the conclusion of the instant premium contract, has operated the instant valley, and the instant premium contract was concluded between the Defendant and G on March 21, 2018, and G was the Defendant.