logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.27 2016가합102831
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells post-face monitoring monitoring, Kame Review (Roar Review Mea), and related products, mainly used for large vehicles, such as buses and trucks. 2) The Defendant entered the Plaintiff on June 1, 2007 and worked as the team leader of the overseas business division, while serving as the head of the overseas business division.

B. C company and the Defendant’s direct transaction 1) The Defendant is a company in England located in one of the Plaintiff’s overseas trading places (hereinafter “C”).

2) From the perspective of the aircom press, the Plaintiff is a product not produced by the Plaintiff with an injecting device for medical use.

(E) upon request for supply and around August 2015 and around December 2015 of the same year, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) operated by Plaintiff-friendly D.

F. F.m. F. F.m. (hereinafter referred to as “F.”);

(2) The Defendant received each payment of KRW 250,00,000 from E on October 5, 2015, and KRW 187,00,00 on February 6, 2016, in relation to the supply of the above Ecom presses.

C. The Defendant, from April 2016 to May 201 of the same year, sells its products to G companies, etc., the Defendant is a company G company located in the U.S. (hereinafter “G”) located in one of the Plaintiff’s overseas trading places.

(2) Switzerland Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SPH”) in competition with the Plaintiff.

(2) Around May 2016, the Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the Defendant attempted to sell the products of the competitor company to the Plaintiff’s customer and set up the Defendant on June 1, 2016.

On September 7, 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded that G reduce the price of seven-person monitoring supplied by the Plaintiff by selling nine-person monitors, a competitor company, at the Plaintiff’s overseas trading office G during his/her service. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is at a price lower than the normal price.

arrow