logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.06 2016가합535970
경업금지 등
Text

1. The Defendants are to produce, sell, distribute, or enter into a franchise store agreement, teaching materials listed in the separate sheet of “Defendant’s Teaching materials”.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2004, Defendant Tracel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Tracel”) entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff on the operation of private education facilities (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) for infants in the age prior to elementary school from 24 months after their birth by using the program, teaching instruments, and teaching materials provided by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant franchise agreement”), and accordingly, entered into the Plaintiff’s program and teaching materials (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s program and teaching materials”; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s program and teaching materials”) with the Plaintiff’s provision of the Plaintiff’s program and teaching materials (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s program and materials”).

B. The instant franchise agreement was renewed several times, and the final renewal was made on September 6, 2013, and the term of the contract was two years, and Article 31 of the Agreement was set out as follows:

C. On or after September 5, 2015, after the expiration of the instant franchise agreement, Defendant Kinmon-We entered into a franchise agreement with Defendant Kinmon-We Co., Ltd. (see, e.g., the commencement of franchise business on September 7, 2015, and evidence No. 20; hereinafter “Defendant Kinmon-We”), and operates a play school with the same teaching material as indicated in the list of the Defendant’s teaching material provided by Defendant Kinmon-We (hereinafter “Defendant’s teaching material”) at the same place as before, and at the same time, at the same time as, the instant franchise agreement was concluded.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. Defendant 1’s claim for prohibition against Defendant 2’s diesel (A) is a claim for prohibition under a non-commercial prohibition agreement.

arrow