손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion is the franchise head office that provides the marina service called "B". In order to operate the franchise franchise store, the defendant takes over approximately one year and seven months from September 3, 2010, taking over the B marina store located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government five stories, and operates a franchise store, which closed around April 2012. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23770, Sep. 3, 2010>
According to the franchise contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant's franchise owner, after the contract is terminated, shall be fully responsible for the balance of sales of the fixed franchise issued through the operation of the franchise store by means of refund, provision of services, etc.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such contractual obligations and caused the holders of the fixed amount to bring an action of this case against the Plaintiff, which is the head office of the franchise store, in order to maintain the credit of the Plaintiff, by allowing the Plaintiff to provide services on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, thereby resulting in the sales of the fixed amount. As such, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of this case on the part of the right to indemnity or the claim for damages arising from subrogation payment.
2. A third party who has no interest in the determination of this Court is not entitled to reimburse against the obligor’s will, and the interest here refers to a legal interest, and only a person who has a de facto interest can not reimburse against the obligor’s will.
According to the facts that the parties are independent business operators (referring to Article 4 of the franchise agreement) with the Plaintiff or the Defendant, following the conclusion of the agreement, the liability for the sale of the fixed right issued by the franchise owner after the conclusion of the agreement is agreed to bear the franchise owner. The fixed right customer’s receipt of the fixed right service from the Defendant is illegal, and if the Defendant et al. provides the service, it is recognized that the Defendant et al. is subject to legal punishment.
If so, the defendant neglected to perform his duty such as refund of fixed right sales and provision of services.