beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.17 2014가단5039506

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 37,536,592 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its amount from October 21, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 201, the Plaintiff concluded a franchise franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with respect to the instant store on August 30, 201, when discussed about the conclusion of the franchise agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant’s convenience store (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. Although the Plaintiff opened the instant store on September 1, 201, the Plaintiff had been in consultation with the employee in charge of the Defendant since the second half of 2013 due to the business depression, etc., but failed to reach an agreement.

C. On February 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the business of the instant store and did not operate the store any longer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 8-30, 31, Eul evidence 19, witness D's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows before the amendment by Act No. 12094, Aug. 18, 2013.

F. The Franchising Business Act

Since the Plaintiff, who violated the duties of the franchisor as stipulated in the above, suffered property or mental loss due to the illegal act, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the illegal act.

① The Defendant violated Article 7(1) of the Franchise Business Act by failing to provide the Plaintiff, a prospective franchisee, with an information disclosure statement prescribed in the Franchise Business Act before entering into the instant franchise agreement.

② The Defendant shall guarantee the Plaintiff the daily sales amounting to KRW 1,200,000 prior to the conclusion of the instant franchise agreement, thereby providing false or exaggerated information, and omitting important matters, thereby violating Article 9(1) of the Franchise Business Act, and failing to provide prospective franchisees with information on expected future profits, such as estimated sales, profits, gross profit, and net income.