2019Da289495 Compensation, etc.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Law Firm KLF (KLF)

Attorney Kim J-jin

Daegu High Court Decision 2019Na21232 Decided October 31, 2019

23, 2020.7

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (the document submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the written grounds of appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement in case of the grounds of appeal).

1. Article 13(2) of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) provides that “The franchise business operator’s right to request the renewal of the franchise agreement may only be exercised to the extent that the whole period of the franchise agreement, including the initial period of the franchise agreement, does not exceed ten years.” The period for exercising the right to request the renewal of the franchise agreement under the Franchising Business Act has elapsed in relation to the continuous contractual relationship. If there is no separate agreement concerning the renewal or extension of the term of the franchise agreement or the expiration of the period for exercising the right to request the renewal of the agreement of a franchisee agreed under the agreement, the parties shall be free to decide on the renewal, etc. of the agreement. In such cases, the franchisor shall be free to decide on whether to accept the request for renewal of the agreement of the franchisee and to renew the agreement. However, the foregoing shall not apply where there are special circumstances contrary to the principle of good faith, such as the conclusion and purpose of the franchise agreement in question, the development of the agreement, profits of both parties, and unique nature of the franchise agreement.

2. Review of the judgment of the original court, the judgment of the first instance as cited by the lower court, and the records reveals the following facts and circumstances.

A. The defendant is a person who operates the franchis headquarters in the name of "(trade name omitted)" and runs the franchis headquarters in the name of "(trade name omitted)", and the plaintiff was a person who operated the franchis headquarters for about 12 years (trade name omitted).

B. Article 15(3) of the franchise agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant provides that the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the agreement may only be exercised within the extent that the entire period of the franchise agreement, including the initial franchise agreement term, does not exceed ten years. Thus, the period for exercising the right to request renewal of the agreement under Article 13(2) of the Franchise Business Act is the same as the period

C. The Plaintiff was found to have attempted to use a blick blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blicker’s blick

D. However, according to the Defendant’s cooking manual, the meaning of the language and text relating to the method of use of a prison, such as not expressly stating that the place place is correct, is not clear.

In addition, the use of arms in the process of the plaintiff Ga's chip chip chip chip chip chip chip does not seem to be an act of the defendant's cooking manuals, but it seems to be an act to improve the method of chip chip cooking.

E. Although the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to present a correct presentation as to which portion of the cooking manual was violated, the Defendant again issued a second demand for correction to the effect that it is similar to the first demand for correction.

F. Since the second demand for correction was long long, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would refuse to comply with the demand for correction, interfere with the core unity of franchise business, and not comply with the standard manuals set by the franchisor, thereby refusing to renew the franchise agreement by falling under “where a franchisee does not accept the terms and conditions or business policies of the franchise agreement” under Article 13(1)2 of the Franchise Business Act.

G. However, it does not appear in the record to acknowledge that the Plaintiff used a weapon, which is not a usheshel for cooking a simple device in the time of the Defendant’s first demand for correction. Moreover, the Plaintiff used a ushel for cooking as required by the Defendant from the time of the first demand for correction to the Defendant, while requesting the cancellation of the first demand for correction.

H. (Trade Name omitted) The Plaintiff, who had been engaged in a business for about 12 years in one region with the trade name, appears to incur considerable property damage due to the Defendant’s refusal to renew the contract, while the Plaintiff’s franchise agreement is renewed, does not seem to have any circumstance to inflict damage on the Defendant even if it is renewed.

3. Examining the facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the franchise agreement under the Franchise Business Act was not recognized after ten years have elapsed since the conclusion of the franchise agreement with the Defendant, it appears that the Defendant’s refusal to renew the franchise agreement was not permissible against the good faith principle. Ultimately, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning of the lower judgment, deeming that the Defendant abused the superior position in the franchise agreement and unfairly refused the renewal of the franchise agreement and imposes disadvantages on the franchise owner, it is justifiable to recognize damages as stated in the judgment on the ground of unfair trade prohibited under the Franchise Business Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the right to request the renewal of the franchise agreement under the Franchise Business Act, unfair trade with the franchise headquarters, and calculation of damages, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Lee In-bok and Lee In-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee