물품대금 등
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 78,403,245 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 31, 2013 to the date of full payment.
1. As to the cause of claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, selling, etc. of an Ansan test, uses the trademark, etc., called “LOOK OPICL” as a business mark, and operates an Ansan franchise business.
(2) On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant opened and operated Luxembourg (hereinafter “the instant branch”) and concluded a franchise agreement to the effect that the Defendant provided goods, etc. or consented to the use of the trademark, etc. so that the said branch may be operated by the Defendant.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant franchise agreement”). The purpose of the instant franchise agreement is to pay the price for the goods supplied to the Plaintiff by the Defendant by the 15th day of the following month, and to pay 2% of the monthly sales as royalties.
(3) Since then, the Plaintiff supplied the instant branch with the goods, such as the lag test.
In around 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant, etc. of the purport that “the rescission of the instant franchise agreement” was not paid even after demanding payment of the price of goods, royalties, etc. at the instant branch.
(4) The sum of the price for goods and royalties not received from the instant branch until November 2013 reaches KRW 78,403,245.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the price for the goods supplied after the conclusion of the instant franchise agreement and the sales amount equivalent to 2% of the price for the goods supplied and the sales amounting to 78,403,245 won and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.
2. As to the defendant's argument
A. (1) On the Defendant’s major assertion regarding the parties to the contract, Nonparty B entered into the instant franchise agreement and operated the instant branch.
The defendant only lent the name to B as an employee of B, and the party to the franchise agreement of this case.