logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.12.22 2016가단46784
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants shall not engage in the business of manufacturing money in Pyeongtaek-si and its neighboring Si/Gun until April 10, 2026.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants are married couple who engaged in the business of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing money in the trade name of Pyeongtaek-si G.

B. The Plaintiffs, as a mother-and-child relationship, agreed to jointly operate the money gas manufacturing business and wholesale retail business, agreed to acquire the said H (hereinafter “instant business”) from the Defendants, and concluded a contract under the name of Plaintiff A and the Defendant C, which acquired the instant business from KRW 45,00,000 (including KRW 10,000,000) in the name of Plaintiff A and the Defendant on March 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. According to the instant contract, Defendant D decided to terminate the instant project as of April 11, 2016.

Plaintiff

On March 21, 2016, A and Defendant C drafted a document stating that “I will acquire or transfer all of the equipment and technical skills of Pyeongtaek-si Factory G Factory G Factory, and all of the business partners” (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

E. Thereafter, around April 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs completed business registration under the name of Plaintiff B with respect to the instant business, and maintained an employment relationship by accepting two employees employed by the Defendants, and run money gas manufacturing business and wholesale retail business with H’s trade name by acquiring all factory machinery equipment from around that time.

F. Meanwhile, from June 2016, the Defendants are engaged in meat processing business, money gas manufacturing business, and wholesale and retail business with the trade name “F” in Pyeongtaek-si E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4, Gap evidence 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business in 2 months after transferring the instant business to the Plaintiffs, and run the same kind of business in Pyeongtaek-si. At the time of the instant contract, they deceiving the Plaintiffs as if they were to transfer the entire business to the Plaintiffs, transfer only 33 out of 65 existing business partners, and make transactions using the rest of the business partners.

arrow