(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가합79614

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) 수원지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가합79614

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 269,068,80 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 6, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff designating the sales price of KRW 448,448,00, and the type of business as convenience store for the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) among the instant sales contracts, which was drafted at the time of the said sales contract, was changed into the current trade name on January 6, 2016. The details relating to the restriction on the type of business among the instant sales contracts are as follows.

In order to ensure the smooth operation of the first floor commercial building after completion, the defendant may designate the type of business according to the first order of each subparagraph, and the plaintiff shall not conduct the business in overlap with the designated type of business granted to the previous shop or lease it to a third party.

This takes effect on the third party to whom the right to this store is transferred.

In the future, priority is confirmed in the type of business specified on the basis of the date of issuance of the contract so that there is no difference between the buyers.

If there is a difference between the buyers due to the type of business after the completion of construction, it shall be adjusted through the management body meeting.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 224,224,00,00 in total on five occasions from April 30, 2015 to October 20, 2015 under the title of down payment and intermediate payment.

C. At present, No. 102 of the instant building is a convenience store established and is in operation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the case of selling a large-scale commercial building as to whether the defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competition, the reason why the seller sets out a specific business to the buyer and sells it to the buyer is the corresponding type of business.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.03.29 2017가합21875

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.05 2015나50281

-서울고등법원 2017.10.24 2017나2014169

-인천지방법원 2020.08.18 2019가합58185

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.05.19 2015가합104560