logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가합58883
영업금지 청구 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2015, the Defendant was paid KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff in return for the transfer of “F”’s place of business and part of business facilities to the Plaintiff, under the trade name of “F store” in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “F store”).

B. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the trade name of “F” to “G”, registered its business in its name, and continues to operate a motor vehicle luminous restoration business until now.

C. Around August 2015, the Defendant opened a business with the trade name “D” in Gwangju Mine-gu, the same type of business as “G” and continues its business until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant transferred the business of “F” to the Plaintiff, which constitutes the business transfer under the Commercial Act.

However, the Defendant, in the vicinity of the “F” place of business, violated the obligation of the transferor of the business to prohibit the competitive business by opening the “D” and operating the same type of business.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act, the defendant shall not engage in the same kind of business in the Gwangju metropolitan area where "F" is located for ten years from the date of business transfer, and the defendant shall not engage in the same type of business in the adjacent areas, and shall discontinue the business in violation thereof and pay compensation for damages to the plaintiff 50 million won and delay damages from November 1, 2016.

B. Since the Defendant entered into the instant contract and transferred part of the “F” physical facilities to the Plaintiff, the instant contract does not constitute business transfer under Article 41 of the Commercial Act, but is merely the relocation of the place of business regarding the part of the facility, and even if so, it does not constitute the instant contract.

arrow