(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.16 2017가단215376

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 성남지원 2018.10.16 2017가단215376

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 30, 2017 to October 16, 2018.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 11, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), together with the whole purport of the pleadings:

On April 1, 2016, while Defendant and ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) operated a restaurant with the trade name of “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in the building located in Gwangju City along with Defendant and ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) entered into a premium agreement with the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016, on which the Plaintiff transferred the business rights, the entire facilities and equipment of the instant restaurant, and the status of lessee, and receive KRW 90,00,000 from the Plaintiff as premium (hereinafter referred to as “instant premium agreement”), and received full payment from the Plaintiff.

B. The premium contract of this case included an agreement prohibiting competitive business with the purport that “the Defendant, etc. does not open a restaurant with the same trade name or the same type of business (if the restaurant is located within 40 km radius from the seat of the restaurant of this case),” and the Defendant prepared and issued a written confirmation stating the above purport to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2016.

C. From April 2017, the Defendant is operating a cafeteria with the mutual name “G” in the building located in Gwangju City (hereinafter “Defendant cafeteria”). The Defendant cafeteria was registered under the Defendant’s former husband’s name on March 27, 2017 and was registered under the Defendant’s name on April 14, 2017. The distance between the Defendant cafeteria and the instant cafeteria is about 10.7km.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant et al. violated the prohibition agreement of competitive business under the premium contract of this case and suffered losses, such as sales, etc., and the defendant et al. is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the premium under the premium contract of this case as consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to such acts of worship.

B. Judgment 1 Defendant

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.12.02 2016나2006239

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.10.06 2014가단12926

-서울고등법원 2019.10.17 2019나2026845

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.05 2017가단3109

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가단110649