logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.12.03 2015가합6785
손해배상 등
Text

1. The defendant shall not run the same restaurant business as the plaintiff until May 31, 2024 in Daegu Metropolitan City area.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) agreed to acquire all rights, including the kitchen equipment, from the Defendant to a general restaurant in Seo-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (b) paid KRW 37,500,000 to the Defendant by June 1, 2015, by transfer of all the rights, including the kitchen equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (c) paid all KRW 37,50,000 to the Defendant by June 1, 2015.

B. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the instant restaurant building F, and completed business registration with the trade name of “G”, and commenced general restaurant business from around that time.

C. However, around November 2014, the Defendant commenced general restaurant business with the trade name of “D” at a store located on approximately 30 meters in Daegu-gu 1st, Seo-gu (hereinafter “Defendant restaurant”) located in the instant restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a transfer of business under the Commercial Act, and the Defendant bears the obligation to prohibit competitive business against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated this and operated the “D” as the same kind of business in the vicinity of the instant restaurant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to operate the same type of business as the Plaintiff in Daegu Metropolitan City for a period of ten years from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2024, which the Plaintiff acquired the instant restaurant, and to discontinue the business of the Defendant restaurant and pay KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff as compensation for breach of the duty of prohibition of competition.

3. Determination

A. Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “In the case of transfer of business, the transferor shall not engage in the same kind of business in the same Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, and Si/Gun and adjacent Si/Gun for 10 years unless otherwise agreed.”

As to the instant case, the Health Council;

arrow