beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. Case summary
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a franchisor that engages in franchise business that sells DNA products, such as coffee and cream, with the business mark “C”. The Defendant, upon entering into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff, concluded a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff, and terminated the franchise agreement on January 31, 2019 (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”). The Defendant, after the termination of the said franchise agreement, operates a coffee and a distribution store with the trade name “D” from February 2, 2019.
3) Article 37 of the franchise agreement of this case stipulates, “If the franchise agreement is terminated, the Defendant shall immediately suspend the use of all intellectual property rights related to the operation of the franchise business, such as the franchise business system, the method of operation, and know-how.” The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap, 1, 3, and 4, and Eul, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The Plaintiff, upon the trade name of “D” after the termination of the instant franchise agreement, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said money, since the Defendant, while engaging in the business of selling coffee and fruit similar to the Plaintiff’s franchise. The Plaintiff breached a duty of prohibiting the Plaintiff’s business know-how in the instant franchise agreement by acquiring business profits by using the Plaintiff’s livingcream, coffee containers, packing methods, etc., which was known to the Plaintiff during the franchise agreement, and thereby, incurred damages to the Plaintiff at least KRW 4,778,750 on the average royalty for the month the Plaintiff would have gained if the franchise agreement was lawfully concluded.
2. We find it difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was used by the Defendant for business as it is for the Plaintiff’s lethy or coffee containers and packaging methods.
In addition, even if the container or packing method used by the defendant is similar to that of the plaintiff, the business know-how, etc., for which the suspension of use is recognized.