logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.08.22 2016나6118
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by the court of this case to add “the next 2. Additional Judgment”, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On September 24, 2011, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, upon entering into the said franchise agreement with the Plaintiff, deceiving the Plaintiff or violated the Franchise Business Act as follows.

Therefore, due to the Defendant’s tort or a violation of the Franchise Business Act, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the cost of KRW 63,716,114 in total, KRW 5,456,00 in total, and KRW 78,777,114 in total, including the signboard in the process of termination of the contract, and KRW 605,00 in total, such as the signboard in the process of termination of the contract. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.

1) Article 9 of the Franchise Business Act (Prohibition of False and Exaggerated Information Provision, etc.) (1) of the Franchise Business Act shall not provide false or exaggerated information or omit important matters in providing prospective franchisees with information. 2) A franchisor violates Article 6-5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Franchise Business Act when it receives franchise fees from franchise business operators, and thus did not have the substance of the franchise art research institute. On September 23, 2011, when it is insufficient to operate franchise business, it presented operational data as if it had been operating the business for about one year, as if it had been operating the business, and provided the Plaintiff with information about the business status, such as explaining the business, or any other similar information.

arrow