logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.18 2018가합571055
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,958,126 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from September 20, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff produced the products by entrusting the production of the so-called so-called “Plaintiff’s products” in attached Form 1 to an enterprise located in China, and then imported and sold them in Korea.

B. The Defendant, from February 2018 to February 2, 2018, imported the product whose name “C” was “Defendant 1” and the name of the product “D” from the company located in China, from February 2 to February 2018, imported the product from the company located in China and sold it in Korea.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 12 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Since the Defendant’s products imitated the form of the Plaintiff’s products sold at the time of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s act constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 5 and 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Plaintiff seek damages from the Plaintiff due to the act of imitateing the product form as above pursuant to Article 5 and Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

B. Defendant 1) Since three years have already elapsed since the form of the Plaintiff’s product was kept, even if the Defendant copied the Plaintiff’s product, it does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) proviso of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and thus, does not constitute an unfair competition act. 2) The Plaintiff’s product was merely embodied in the form of an ordinarily held in the iron ice, and even if the Defendant copied the Plaintiff’s product, it does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) proviso (ii)

3..

arrow