A. On November 18, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with C on E convenience stores located in Bupyeong-si (hereinafter “instant convenience stores”) and was operating the franchise agreement. On July 2018, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant all rights to the instant convenience stores, upon the Defendant’s request, to maintain the Plaintiff’s business name until March 31, 2019.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sales price of the credit card at a convenience store from the credit card company. From January 2019, the Defendant unpaid the electricity fee from March 2019, and the franchise fee for the headquarters C from March 2019. Since March 2019, the Defendant requested the change of the name of the business entity at the instant convenience store from March 2019 to the Defendant, and the contact was interrupted without complying therewith. As such, the Plaintiff did not deposit the credit card price at March 2019, but changed the ID of CCTV and business program at the convenience store of this case.

C. Only after that, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff restored the program ID and remitted the credit card payment to the Plaintiff on March 2019, but thereafter, the Defendant failed to comply with the procedure for changing the name of the business operator, and the convenience store was in a de facto discontinuance of business due to the failure to operate the convenience store in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 12 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant established the liability for damages caused the actual discontinuance of the convenience store in this case while failing to perform the liability even though the name of the business operator should be changed as of April 1, 2019 according to the instant contract for acquisition of convenience store. As seen earlier, this constitutes the nonperformance of the obligation under the acquisition agreement, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant first obstructed the defendant's business.