(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.07.12 2017고단466

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.07.12 2017고단466

업무방해

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) that sells pregras and Ansan, and the victim Co., Ltd. is a company that manufactures and sells pregras of domestic and overseas well-known brand.

On July 30, 2015, the Defendant only entered into a contract with the victim company to request the production of a license and to receive the license from the victim company, but did not manufacture the license, and the victim company was well aware that it manufactured and sold the license of a domestic and foreign well-known brand.

Nevertheless, from September 2015 to November 2016, the Defendant was entitled to exclusive manufacture and sale until December 31, 2015 by the victim company in the case of F, G, and H brand, respectively, and in the case of I, J, K, and L brand, even though the victim company had previously manufactured and sold exclusively before the victim company, C’s brand page -C is a group of product planning, manufacture, design, marketing strategy, marketing strategy, and distribution strategy experts.

- Having reached the title of the pertinent page, and the MYEWARING (production, production) of the pertinent page, it was deemed to be a eYEWAR, and the eYAR was recorded under the name of the brand called I, F, G, H, H, J, K,K, and L (hereinafter “the pertinent brand”) to spread false facts as being specialized in manufacturing the above brand license in the Defendant Company, thereby hindering the victim Company’s management of customers, such as maintaining the contractual relationship and attracting new customers.

2. Determination

A. In the formation of a crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and the occurrence of the risk of interference with business is sufficient, but the crime of interference with business should not be established if there is no risk of interference with business.

B. C website of the Defendant’s operation attached to the complaint.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.12 2017노938

-서울북부지방법원 2015.06.16 2015고단362

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.08.24 2017고단1100

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.08 2013가합50300

-서울동부지방법원 2015.02.04 2014고단1439