보증금 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 100 million and the remainder of the expenses after the interior works, from the Defendant. The court of first instance rejected the claim for deposit and the claim for payment of the remainder after the interior works.
Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of the ruling at the trial is limited to the claim portion of the above deposit.
2. The Defendant is a person who has operated the part-time management business (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “D” in Nam-gu, Gwangju, and the Plaintiff is a person who entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant with respect to the instant business as seen below.
On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a provisional contract stating that “The Plaintiff shall again prepare the balance on the payment date” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provisional contract”) under the condition that he/she would operate the business of this case as a franchise store of the business of this case on the condition that he/she would receive the income therefrom equally from the Defendant, and that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant a total of KRW 100 million (five years; hereinafter referred to as “the amount of KRW 100 million”) to the Defendant (the down payment of KRW 20 million on November 11, 2009, KRW 80 million, and KRW 80 million on February 25, 2010).
(2) The Plaintiff, pursuant to the instant franchise agreement, remitted each of the instant franchise stores amounting to KRW 20 million on November 11, 2009, KRW 20 million on February 24, 2010, and KRW 60 million on February 25, 2010, respectively, to the Defendant, according to the instant franchise agreement.
On July 6, 2011, the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant franchise store to the Defendant any longer before and after childbirth. At that time, the Plaintiff did not operate the instant franchise store from that time, and the Defendant was registered in the name of G on June 5, 2012 while operating the instant franchise store thereafter.