(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.04.18 2018가단90547

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.04.18 2018가단90547

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over all entertainment bar business under the trade name “D” located on five underground floors, including Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and began to run “D” business from July 18, 2017.

B. After transferring the business of “D” to the Plaintiff, the Defendant commenced the entertainment tavern business under the trade name of “F” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul.

prescribed provisions

1. The defendant shall not engage in entertainment bar business until June 13, 2027 in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government area.

2. The defendant shall discontinue the business of "F" operated by the defendant and other persons in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

3. In the case of the above paragraphs 1 and 2, the defendant shall immediately pay 10 million won per time to the plaintiff as damages.

4. The Defendant shall pay 27 million won to the Plaintiff up to June 15, 2018.

Damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the date of payment to the day of full payment.

5. In the event that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the money stated in the foregoing paragraph 4, the application for a provisional disposition prohibiting competition is withdrawn and the application is filed for the rescission of the enforcement.

6. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

7. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

C. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff received a provisional injunction against the Defendant (this Court 2017Kahap5158), and filed a lawsuit, such as the prohibition of competitive operations, and entered into conciliation with the following details.

(This Court 2017Gahap75289, hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). / [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed on the ground that there is no benefit to the protection of rights.

The plaintiff did not comply with the obligation of prohibition of competition according to the mediation of this case, while the defendant did not comply with the obligation of prohibition of competition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.29 2015가합110684

-부산지방법원 2020.07.03 2019나49885

-서울서부지방법원 2014.09.30 2014가단17773

-광주고등법원 2020.02.12 2019나24970

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.07.09 2014가합3696