logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가합56136
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company running franchise business under the trade name of "L", and the plaintiffs are franchisees who have entered into the franchise agreement with the defendant (hereinafter "the franchise agreement in this case").

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant did not perform their obligations under the instant franchise agreement, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the termination of the instant franchise agreement and the damages arising therefrom.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Defendant breached its obligations under the instant franchise agreement

A. According to the plaintiffs' assertion 1), the defendant has a duty not to suspend or refuse the management of the business, education, training, etc. of the plaintiffs by means of unfair termination of contract, etc. However, the defendant neglected to manage the franchise store, educate employees, develop new technology, etc., changed the head office distribution company without reasonable grounds, and did not perform the duty under the franchise contract in this case, and violated the good faith principle. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not perform the duty under the franchise contract in this case, and violated the duty under the good faith principle. Thus, the defendant did not fail to fulfill the duty under the franchise contract in this case, and did not comply with the procedure for termination under the franchise contract in this case, and did not terminate the contract because the contract was not terminated.

On September 26, 2017, which was submitted before the appointment of an attorney, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit should be dismissed since the Plaintiffs failed to observe the termination procedure and the instant franchise agreement was not terminated.

arrow