beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: (a) 2.10 square meters “32.6 square meters” in the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) 3.1 square meters “C. . 2.11; and (c) 4. 3 and 5, “Article 9 of A” in the judgment of first instance as “Article 9”; and (c) 2.1 square meters in the judgment of the court of first instance as “32.6 square meters” in the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) 4. 3 and 5, respectively, “Article 9 of A” in the judgment of first instance as “Article 9” in the judgment of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of first instance;
2. Additional determination
A. The lease contract (No. 3-1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s assertion as the party to the contract was forged, and Defendant Ireland did not deliver the above lease contract to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Article 24 (1) of the forged Lease Agreement provides that "where necessary due to the business policy, management of the building belonging to the business object, object, and object of the defendant Ireland, the defendant Ireland may directly operate the adjacent place within the object, or allow a third party to use it, and sell items identical or similar to the plaintiff's goods, and the plaintiff shall accept it." Thus, it cannot be justified for the defendant Ireland to proceed with the exercise of the letter license, which is the product sold by the plaintiff on the first floor of the department store of this case, and it constitutes a tort that still violates the plaintiff's business right.
B. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 21 (including paper numbers) alone was forged by Defendant Ireland and the lease agreement (No. 3-1) to which the Plaintiff was a party.
However, it is difficult to view that the Defendants granted the Plaintiff the exclusive right to sell Luxembourgs brands within the department stores of this case, and otherwise recognized evidence.