손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise store agreement with Defendant B with regard to D, setting the term of the contract from July 10, 2014 to July 9, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant franchise store agreement”). At the time of the instant franchise store agreement, Defendant B exempted the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s franchise store royalties for one year, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million deposit to the Defendant B.
Defendant B stated in the instant contract as “mutual E and Representative B” and affixed his personal seal.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with Defendant C, setting a contract amount of KRW 100 million (including value-added tax) with Defendant C to subcontract the above D interior works.
(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). C.
On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a “D” business on the second floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF (hereinafter “instant store”) and operated a dump to sell ice ice ice ice ices, etc.
On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and closed down the business on October 31, 2015 on the grounds of low sales volume.
Defendant B completed business registration (registration number G) with its trade name on May 15, 2014 as “E” and operated E, and closed the business around February 2015.
On June 8, 2015, Defendant B changed the trade name to H “H”, product comprehensive wholesale business, and place of business to the original state, and registered the business (registration number G).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul No. 1-1, witness I's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the plaintiff B
A. The franchisor under the contract of the instant franchise store which causes the Plaintiff’s claim is “E”.
(1) The requirements for a franchisor are registered as a business entity under the interpretation of the Franchise Business Act and other relevant statutes, but the franchisor does not continue to exist since E ceases to exist.
② Defendant B provided false or exaggerated information or provided deceptive information.
(3) Opening point.