권리금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From May 2012, the Defendant: (a) operated a siren franchise store (hereinafter “instant store”) with the trade name “D” located in the 1st floor in Guri-si; (b) requested the transfer of goodwill to the E Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”) around April 2015.
B. On May 2015, the Plaintiff, upon the introduction of F, as the broker of the instant brokerage office, sought an explanation of KRW 500,000 or KRW 600,000 of the daily sales of the instant store. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over the instant store from the Defendant as premium of KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant premium”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid all the instant premium.
C. Meanwhile, around May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intention to take over the instant store by posting a phone via F, prior to the instant contract, around May 20, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff by falsely unrefilled the sales of the store of this case. Thus, the plaintiff should pay 50,00,000 won for the premium of this case, 5,500,000 won for the damages caused by tort, and 200,500,500 won for the teaching material, and 3,500,000 won for the brokerage commission.
B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where specific facts regarding the important matters of transaction are falsely notified in the advertisement of goods in a manner to the extent to be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, the act of deception is deemed to constitute deception. However, the mere exaggeration in the advertisement is not sufficient to mislead itself as long as it may be acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107627, Jan. 29, 2014).