수익금지급
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on the reasoning of the lower judgment, determined that the instant operating agreement on each of the instant stores located in D’s respective branches was terminated on May 10, 2016 by the Defendant’s declaration of termination due to the failure of trust between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the accrued profit KRW 190 million and the delay damages for the amount of KRW 50 million.
On the other hand, the court below held that the business partnership agreement of this case, which provided that the plaintiff shall pay KRW 10 million per month to the plaintiff as profits, was in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act and null and void since it was an unfair legal act concluded by the plaintiff's coercion, which was held in the superior position as the head of the food team at Dro, and was in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act. In light of the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the business partnership agreement of this case, the status and experience of the representative director of the company specializing in food stores
The court rejected this case’s each sales floor of this case’s salesroom, etc. on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there was an imminent difficulty in the salesroom and operation, etc., and that there was no significant imbalance with payment
The judgment below
In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to unfair legal acts under Article 104 of the Civil Act, thereby failing to exhaust the deliberation or exceeding the bounds of
2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on the reasoning of the lower judgment, found that the instant trade agreement was concluded by the Plaintiff’s coercion in the superior position as above, and pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act