logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.23 2016나12238
위약금등
Text

1. Appeal against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal lawsuit and the counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in this court.

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim of this Court for the main claim of this Court is as follows: the Defendant suspended the use of the Plaintiff’s “Fishing” trademark on July 13, 2015, and suspended the Defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s “Fishing” trademark on July 13, 2015; “B” used the instant trademark until July 13, 2015 by the Defendant “B” until July 13, 2015; “B” from the date of suspending the use of the instant trademark by the Defendant’s suspension of the use of the instant trademark until July 13, 2015; and “B” should be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the following additional determination as to the assertion that the parties stressed or added to this court.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s declaration of intent to correct and terminate the contract of this case filed with the Defendant is invalid in violation of Article 14 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Franchise Business (only hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) (only hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) (only intending to terminate a franchise agreement with a grace period of not less than two months and specifically specify the violation of the contract and notify the franchisee of the fact that the contract is terminated without correction at least twice in writing). At the time of delivery of the copy of the petition of this case recognized by the first instance as the time of the termination of the contract, the Defendant’s failure to perform the contract of this case was resolved at the time of delivery of the copy of the petition of this case, and thus, the first instance court’

The reason why the Franchise Business Act set the above grace period is during the grace period.

arrow