(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017나2037346

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) 서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017나2037346

영업금지 등

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission, addition, or deletion, as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.

Part IV through V of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from among the judgment of the first instance.

Of the judgment of the first court of first instance, the first head of the fifth sentence added "No.S.", and the fifth sentence "Duty to Prohibit Business" was put into the "Duty to Prohibit Concurrent Business".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from 13.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs' arguments based on the premise that the business contract of this case was not terminated are just and reasonable.

Part 7 of the Decision of the first instance shall be added to the following:

No. 4 of the first instance trial witness L [No. 5] (the Plaintiff participated at the time of establishment A, and the name of the audit (the name of the Plaintiff) was in fact made with the Plaintiff C, Defendant D, and E individually. The reason why the club business was terminated at the beginning of 2013 was written, but it was not performed, and there was a good way to each other in terms of various kinds of miscellaneouss, etc..,” and the reason why the club business was terminated at the beginning of 2013 was that Defendant D and E had no choice but to distribute shares. Since February 2013, 2013, Defendant D and E testified to the effect that it could no longer be in a club business relationship.” Of the first instance trial decisions, Defendant D and E testified to the effect that it could no longer be in a cooperative business relationship. “The reason why the club business was terminated is difficult,” and the part of the first instance judgment of the first instance court “No. 8, 2013” was deleted.

The part of the 8th judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from the 19th judgment to the 20th judgment.

B. Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court concerning the claim for damages.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나10671

-서울고등법원 2018.09.06 2017나2031102

-서울고등법원 2017.09.29 2017나2008195

-서울고등법원 2017.09.29 2017나2025602

-서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2015나2054644