beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to acquire all of the lease deposit and the facilities of the franchise business entity and the main office (hereinafter “C”) of the Defendant’s “C” franchise business and the main office business entity, “C”, trademarks, franchisors, etc. and the main office business entity (hereinafter “C”) with the Defendant as of November 7, 2012, and to pay the remainder of KRW 50 million as the down payment on the same day and KRW 45 million as of April 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
(2) On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued a recommendation on October 8, 2013, which included the following contents: (a) the Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of “C” and franchise business in accordance with the instant contract; (b) the Plaintiff was issued a recommendation on “C” from “C” (the registration date E; (c) the duration of the trademark is November 29, 2016; and (d) the use of the trade name of “C” around October 10, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment 1A) Plaintiff’s husband G (her husband G) performed the interior work of “C” specialty store 1, which the Defendant tried to operate on or around May 2012. As a result of the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff was willing to operate the said franchise store.
B) The Defendant, who became aware of such mind between the Plaintiff and G, actively presented to the Plaintiff the coffee specialty points he operated and introduced the persons engaged in the same kind of business. C) The Defendant completed the interior construction of the said G, and opened the said “C” title 1 points in Daejeon on June 2012, 2012, and opened the said title 2 points in the order of July 7, 2012, and 3 points in August 2012. The Defendant, in light of its circumstances, could not work in Daejeon, should the Plaintiff.