beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 4-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and witness B and Eul's testimony, the whole purport of the arguments is acknowledged.
The defendant is a company that engages in convenience store business under the trade name of the Slater, and the franchise owner who entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant directly becomes a store tenant and operates convenience store, and the defendant is a tenant and the franchise owner becomes a lessee and operates the franchise store by entering into a franchise agreement with the Llter who operates the franchise store.
B. On February 21, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty D to lease KRW 101 (hereinafter “instant store”) of the Kimhae-si Building 101 (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by Nonparty D for the operation of the franchise store, and paid KRW 50 million to D from March 12, 2012 to March 11, 2014. Around that time, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty D for the lease of KRW 50 million from March 12, 2012 to March 11, 2014, and paid KRW 30 million as premium.
C. In order to secure the right to claim the reimbursement of deposit under the above lease agreement, the Defendant completed on March 23, 2012 the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant building”) with respect to Nos. 401 and 501 of the said building owned by D.
The Defendant, who recruited the store owner of the instant store, was introduced by the Plaintiff who wished to run the store owner from B who arranged the said lease contract, and entered into a sales contract with G, who was the Plaintiff’s misleading, purchased the instant store in KRW 345 million from D while talking about the franchise agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
E. The Plaintiff purchased the instant store by her omission, and thus, the Plaintiff’s franchise agreement, not SLT, is not SLT.