손해배상(기)
1. The Plaintiff’s franchise agreement entered into between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on November 14, 2016.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8.
On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff, in the Jinju City City, operates the business of selling Syna products (e-commerce) with the trade name “D,” and on November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid franchise fees of KRW 20 million from the Defendant and allowed the Defendant to open “F points in Jinju E using the trade name “D,” but the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant to transfer the supply of new products, such as clothing, and display of products, and sales know-how, etc. (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).
[The details of the first franchise fee under Article 15 of the franchise agreement of this case: Admission cost, amount (unit: 20,000, including unit): Details: Place selection, support cost, operation of franchise business, provision cost of manuals, open support cost, etc.](b).
On November 4, 2016, the defendant paid 10 million won to the plaintiff as the price for clothes supplied by the plaintiff.
C. Around that time, the Defendant opened a “F store” and started its business, and supplied by the Plaintiff and entered the Defendant’s franchise store into the “G store” on the signboard.
On November 17, 2016, the Defendant paid 20 million won to the Plaintiff according to the instant franchise agreement.
E. On December 26, 2016, H (Defendant’s wife) who actually operates the above FF points showed that the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return the said franchise fee, etc. that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not supply the goods imported from Hong Kong position.”
F. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant, via an agent, violated Article 6-2 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) (registration, etc. of information disclosure statement), Articles 7 (Duty to Provide Information Disclosure Statement), and 9 (Prohibition of Provision, etc. of False or Exaggerated Information), and Article 10 and Article 10 of the Franchise Business Act.