(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.18 2019가합10775

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.18 2019가합10775

영업금지 등

Text

1. The Defendants, by March 31, 2021, include rhythm rhymbling, net, and optical cities, both red and retail businesses.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for comprehensive transfer and acquisition of business (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants (Defendant B, a real operator, and Defendant C) who operated fish and shellfish wholesale and retail business, including red combined wholesale and retail business, with the trade name “E” from F at F at F at F at P time.

B. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff transfers assets and all business partners on the company’s account books operated by the Defendants with the name of “E” to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2018; (b) the employees employed by the Defendants continue to be employed by the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendants did not operate a factory for the next three years; and (d) the Plaintiff pays KRW 100 million to the Defendants as security deposit amount, and as premium, KRW 30 million.

C. The Plaintiff paid a security deposit and premium pursuant to the terms of the instant contract, and operated a wholesale and retail business of fish and shellfish, including red marbing wholesale and retail business. The Defendants conducted a new business registration with Defendant B’s representative in Shysia, and conducted a wholesale and retail business of fish and shellfish with the same trade name until April 2019.

[Based on the recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-3, 5-7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The issue of whether a transfer of business constitutes a transfer of business ought to be determined depending on whether the transferee continues to engage in the same business activity as the transferor had done after the transferee transferred functional assets as the source of revenue organized organically.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da89722 Decided April 11, 2008, etc.). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff continues to engage in business activities such as the Defendants’ transfer of functional properties as sources of assets and profits that have been systematically organized from the Defendants, such as the company’s assets and customers.

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 4. 11. 선고 2007다89722 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.11.07 2018가합12712

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.01.17 2016가단103760

-대법원 2012.07.26 2012다27377

-광주지방법원 2016.04.20 2015나8298