(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.03.31 2019고정429

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) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.03.31 2019고정429

업무방해

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was a person who was sold in lots at the ice rink store in the BB market; (b) had customers only in the main shop in the said market; (c) had no customer in the ice shop; (d) installed goods, such as the victim D store No. 25 in the main shop in the said market in the infinite city; (d) the victim E store in the main shop in the said market; (e) the victim E store in lots; (e) the victim E store in the main shop in lots; and (e) installed goods, such as the water store, by occupying the main shop in lots, the 27 store in which the victim F was sold, without permission; and (e) from that time to September 2, 2019, the Defendant obstructed the victims’ legitimate market business in each of the above stores or the lease business in each of the above stores by force.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victims received each of the instant stores Nos. 25, 26, and 27 of this Sub-Section from the mayor of the Si/Gun/Gu in 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”) and did not operate the business at each of the said stores, and did not lease the same to others, and the Defendant, upon entering each of the instant stores located around February 20, 2016 and doing business with the trade name “G” until September 2, 2019.

The term "business of interference with business" means the whole of business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status.

In this case, the victims received the allocation of each of the stores in this case from the head of the Si/B, which is the owner of each of the stores in this case, and had the authority to operate or lease the store in this case.

Even if the company did not engage in a specific business activity or lease, it was engaged in the business or lease business.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The above evidence alone revealed that the victims engaged in business or leased business at each of the stores of this case.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Therefore, the defendant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.09.12 2018나308687

-제주지방법원 2021.01.20 2019나14936 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단4402

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단257403

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.06.29 2017가단38200