2...

A. Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of cosmetics.

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company concluded a contract under the name of “G” (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the purport that the Plaintiffs shall establish a branch office of the Defendant Company and sell materials provided by the Defendant Company using the trademark and trade name, etc. owned by the Defendant Company, and in return, pay KRW 300,000 per month to the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiffs established and operated each branch under the instant contract.

C. The instant contract provides that one person who newly opens a branch must introduce one of the other branch operators, and shall pay a fine if not introduced.

(hereinafter referred to as “fine clause”). 【No ground for recognition” has any dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4-1 and 5 of the evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ claim provision on fines is invalid because it constitutes an unfair trade practice prohibited under Article 12(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) or an anti-social legal act.

In addition, the defendant company did not provide the information disclosure statement to the plaintiffs pursuant to the Franchise Business Act, so the contract in this case is null and void.

Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to return the money received from the Plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the instant contract fine clause to the Plaintiffs, and Defendant F is obligated to pay the said money jointly with the Defendant Company for compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment, as it took part in the Defendant Company’s tort by lending its account to the Defendant Company with the knowledge of all the above circumstances.

B. The instant contract by the Defendants is asserted.