logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2018가단5260155
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C and D jointly share KRW 115,292,601, and Defendant B jointly share the said money with Defendant C and D.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a franchisor that runs a franchise business with the trade name “B” and “F”.

Defendant C’s representative director and Defendant D served as the head of Defendant B’s headquarters. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant to establish “G stores” (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) by setting the contract period as one year between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On November 2014, the Plaintiff operated the “J store” (hereinafter “instant store”) at approximately 40 square meters in part of the I store of H 6th (230 square meters) of H building from November 2014.

The above I Burial was leased by K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) from L, and Defendant B entered into a consignment contract with K on the instant store, which is part of the above store, with Defendant B, with the content that K would receive goods from Defendant B and sell them.

The sales from the store of this case were handled as K’s sales, and Defendant B settled the profits of the store of this case by paying to the Plaintiff the amount after deducting the sales commission from K’s sales commission.

On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant E that he/she does not want to renew the instant franchise agreement, and the instant franchise agreement was terminated around April 2016.

A final and conclusive judgment, etc. on June 14, 2014, the Plaintiff sought explanation from Defendant B that the interior work is necessary for the operation of the instant store, and entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant, and paid KRW 103,365,500 (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) to Defendant B at the expense for the items of “the interior separate construction work”).

However, the Plaintiff shall consult with K on whether the interior part of the instant store was removed and on the issue of ownership attribution.

arrow