2010 Gohap 4311 Damage

Mexico, Inc.

A

January 5, 2011

February 9, 2011

1. Defendant (Appointed Party) shall pay to the Plaintiff 7,584,00 won with 5% interest per annum from January 20, 201 to February 9, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant (Appointed Party) respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant (Appointed Party, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and Appointed B jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 62,880,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2006, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the Plaintiff, the franchise headquarters, which is a franchise business entity that engages in franchise business on the food store in the Republic of Korea, to operate “Mexico or D” in the Geum-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”), which includes the following:

Article 21(1): The Plaintiff shall supply the goods and materials necessary for maintaining the identity of brands to the Defendant. Paragraph (2) of this Article: Goods and materials that the Plaintiff ceases to supply or does not supply without justifiable grounds may be directly procured and sold by the Defendant.

B. From October 13, 2006 to April 13, 2006, the Defendant operated “Mexico D” with his wife B. From January 2007 to April 201, the Defendant received 24,51ma [the Plaintiff’s 21,520 mari [the Defendant appears to have been supplied with 20,316 mari from the Plaintiff according to the entry of the evidence No. 5 of this case’s 21,520 mari (the Defendant’s 21,520 mari was supplied with 21,520 mari from the Plaintiff, which is the Defendant’s wre 3,031 wre wre wre) + 620 wre wre and wre 527 wre.

C. The Plaintiff, from around 2009, notified the Defendant of the fact that the amount of supply of marbling and good faith is excessive over several times compared to that of marbling that he was supplied, and accordingly, recommended the Defendant to correct it on the premise that the Defendant could be deprived of her lives.

(d) Statistical data, etc.

(1) According to the statistics of the national franchise store which entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and the franchising store and operates the franchising point, the ratio of skins sold in each franchise store is 20%, 20%, 20%, flusium, and flusium (flusium mae and flusium flusium).

(2) The Plaintiff’s salary class 1 supplied to the franchise store shall be 5 km per unit, and the two beliefs shall be packed in 10 km unit.

(3) The cooking of 1mein is a process that combines one-lane 50g (one country) with water, satis and 100g (10g) with the two-lane cat, satis again with the two-lane cat, satis in the process that satisfin satis in the oil, and satis in the process that satisfin sat in the oil, and satisfin sat in the two-lane satis in the same manner that satisfin sat sat 50g with water, and then sat in the same manner that satisfin sat in the oil, and then satisfin sat in the same manner

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, and 5, testimony of witness E and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Selection, who did not receive the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, committed the instant franchise agreement by cooking and selling kin by using the biock that was not supplied by the Plaintiff, and violated the instant franchise agreement. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for damages of approximately 42,160 Madin’s 50 madin’s 50 madin’s 50 madin’s 50 madin’s 1 madin’s 1 madin’s 1 madin’s 80 madin’s 80 madin’s 80 madin’s 620 madin’s 620 mad from January 207 to April 2010, the Defendants were jointly and severally liable for damages of at least 36,580 madin’s 250 magin’s 50 ma250 ma2515 ma,25125 ma

A. According to Article 21(1) and (2) of the instant franchise agreement, the Plaintiff supplied materials to the Defendant, but the Defendant can procure them only with respect to the materials that the Plaintiff suspended or failed to supply. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff supplied the materials, if the Defendant purchased the same materials, the Defendant breached the duty of prohibiting the purchase of materials under the instant franchise agreement.

B. Whether the liability for damages occurred

(1) As to the defendant

(가) 파우더 620봉을 기준으로 한 조리 가능한 생닭의 수 앞서 인정한 사실관계에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 전국 가맹점에서 조리되는 프라이드치킨과 양념치킨의 비율은, 프라이드치킨이 20%, 양념치킨이 20%, 반반치킨이 60%이지만, 반반치킨도 프라이드치킨 반마리와 양념치킨 반마리가 조리되어 판매되는 것이므로, 프라이드치킨과 양념치킨만을 기준으로 한 비율은 50% : 50%라고 할 수 있고, 그와 같은 통계자료는 피고 점포에서의 조리 비율에도 그대로 적용될 수 있는 점, ② 1차 파우더(동일한 파우더를 용도에 따라 1, 2차로 구분 사용하는 경우를 포함한다)는 프라이드치킨과 양념치킨 모두의 조리에 필요한 반면, 2차 파우더는 프라이드치킨의 조리에만 필요한 점, ③ 프라이드치킨 1마리 또는 양념치킨 1마리의 조리를 위해 필요한 1차 파우더의 양은 50g이고, 프라이드치킨 1마리의 조리를 위해 필요한 2차 파우더의 양은 100g인 점, 1차 파우더 1봉(5kg)을 기준으로 프라이드치킨과 양념치킨의 동일한 수를 조리한다고 가정할 때, 프라이드치킨 50마리 (2,500g/50g), 양념치킨 50마리(2,500g/50g)의 조리가 가능하다고 할 것이고, 이 경우에 프라이드치킨 50마리의 조리를 위해 필요한 2차 파우더 역시 1봉[5kg(50수 X 100g)]이라고 할 것이므로, 1차 파우더 1봉을 이용하여 프라이드치킨과 양념치킨의 동수를 조리함에 따라 그와 동일한 분량의 2차 파우더가 사용된다는 결론에 이르게 되고, 필요한 1차 및 2차 파우더의 분량이 동일한 이상, 가맹점은 원고로부터 50 : 50의 비율로 1차 및 2차 파우더를 공급받게 된다고 봄이 상당하고, 이 때 1차 파우더 1봉과 2차 파우더 1봉을 기준으로 조리가 가능한 치킨은 프라이드치킨 50마리와 양념치킨 50마리, 합계 100마리로서 1, 2차 파우더 각 1봉의 소비에 따라 투입되어야 할 생닭의 수는 100마리인 점 등을 종합하여 이 사건에 있어서 원고가 피고에게 공급한 파우더 620봉(1봉당 5kg)을 기준으로 조리 가능한 생닭의 수를 산정하면, 파우더 620봉은 1차 파우더 310봉과 2차 파우더 310봉으로 구분되어 사용되었다고 할 수 있으므로, 1차 파우더 310봉으로 조리 가능한 치킨은 프라이드치킨 15,500마리(310봉 × 50마리), 양념 치킨 15,500수(310봉 × 50마리), 합계 31,000마리이며, 이때 프라이드치킨 15,500마리의 조리를 위하여 필요한 2차 파우더 역시 310봉[1,550,000g(5,000g x 310봉) : 100g 15,500마리)임은 계산상 분명하고, 따라서 피고는 원고로부터 파우더 620봉을 공급받아 프라이드치킨 15,500마리 및 양념치킨 15,500마리, 합계 치킨 31,000마리를 조리 · 판매한 사실을 인정할 수 있다[원고는, 양념 1통을 기준으로 조리 가능한 생닭의 수가 80마리임을 전제로 피고가 조리한 생닭의 수가 42,160마리(527통 × 80마리)라고 주장하나, ① 양념 1통을 기준으로 한 조리 가능한 생닭의 수가 80마리임을 인정할 만한 자료가 부족한 점, ② 그와 같은 전제가 가능하다고 하더라도, 양념은 양념치킨의 조리에만 사용되는 것이므로, 피고가 양념 527통을 사용하여 양념치킨 42,160마리를 조리 · 판매하였다면, 그에 상응하는 수의 프라이드치킨도 조리 · 판매하였어야 할 것인데, 피고는 원고로부터 프라이드치킨 42,160마리의 조리에 필요한 파우더에 미달하는 분량만을 공급받은 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 양념 527통만을 기준으로 피고가 원고로부터 공급받은 생닭의 수를 산정하기는 어렵다고 할 것이므로, 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(B) If the facts of the fact that the Defendant was dead are the same as above, the Defendant should be supplied or supplied by the Plaintiff. It can be recognized that the 31,00 horses recognized as having been supplied by the Plaintiff and the 21,520 horses, which are the difference between the 31,520 horses and the 21,520 horses that the Defendant actually supplied by the Plaintiff, were dead by the Defendant (31,00 horses - 21,520 horses).

(C) The defendant's liability for damages caused by the violation of the franchise agreement

After all, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the violation of the franchise agreement of this case by deceiving 9,480 horses.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the Appointed B is without merit, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge that the Selection B violated the instant franchise agreement with respect to whether the Selection B was the party to the instant franchise agreement. The scope of damages is without merit.

The scope of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff is damages in proximate causal relation with the violation of the franchise agreement in this case. The Plaintiff is the net profit that the Plaintiff obtained by supplying the Defendant’s crub (the Plaintiff sought compensation on the premise that the Defendant’s crub that the crub was the profit gained by cooking and selling the crub that it was the loss. However, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the Defendant’s violation of the franchise agreement in this case, the above assertion cannot be accepted), and the net profit that the Plaintiff obtained by supplying the Defendant’s crub to the Defendant is the 800 fact per crub per 1 crub, and there is no dispute between the parties.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 7,584,00 won (9,480max 800 won) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from January 20, 201 to February 9, 2011, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, which is clear on the records of this case, to the plaintiff, for damages for violation of the contract of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge;

Judges Park Jong-hee

Judges Kim Gung-soo