손해배상 등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the second order”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 8. 8. 8. 7 to 9. 2. 8.
(f) ① The Plaintiff used the expression “short-value added tax” in the instant application for payment order, but appears to seek value-added tax settlement pursuant to the instant franchise agreement in light of the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that can be known through the statement of grounds of appeal. As such, this part of the claim refers to “request for value-added tax settlement”;
② The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the claim for additional subsidies (1) The Defendant shall pay the difference to the Plaintiff when selling the products purchased from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant franchise agreement and the sales accrued therefrom are less than the purchase value-added tax.
However, since the amount receivable above is calculated on the basis of supply value, excluding value-added tax, the value-added tax is not reflected, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,304,060 won and delay damages corresponding to the difference between the value-added tax and the sales value-added tax, separate from the above amount receivable.
② At the time of entering into the instant franchise agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall bear half of the expenses incurred in CCTV installed in the instant store; however, if the instant franchise agreement is terminated even if it is attributable to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to return the residual value of the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff shall bear 300,000
However, since the instant franchise agreement was terminated due to the Defendant’s fault, the Defendant’s residual value of CCTV costs borne by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.