(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단20210

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단20210

손해배상(기)등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a franchisee, concluded a franchise agreement with the term of the contract from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018 with respect to the coffee specialty store located in Suwon-gu, Daegu, as the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff spent KRW 33 million in total as expenses for education, publicity, and machinery and equipment, and paid KRW 33 million as expenses for interior medicine, and through the Defendant, the interior medicine construction was conducted.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 5

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's contract should be terminated as the franchisor violated the duty of supply of raw and secondary materials, publicity, promotion, etc., and that the defendant should return the difference between the plaintiff's estimated price of KRW 13.8 million and the 2.7 million cost of equipment and facilities that the plaintiff confirmed through the homepage among the 1,3.8 million won of the estimated price of KRW 1,3.8 million and the 1,3.64 million of the total amount of KRW 2,7.66 million, which the plaintiff confirmed through the homepage.

Although the defendant fulfilled his duties as a franchisor, the plaintiff arbitrarily used materials as a franchise store, and changed Qua New, it is impossible to simply compare the interior cost and the cost of equipment and facilities. The above amount is argued to have been consulted in advance with the plaintiff.

B. There is no dispute between the parties to the termination of the franchise contract of 1 member shop contract, or according to the Gap evidence No. 9, the fact that the plaintiff purchased directly materials without being supplied by the defendant.

However, it is difficult to ascertain whether the defendant violated the duty to supply materials or whether the plaintiff arbitrarily secured materials, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the defendant violated the duty to supply materials as a franchisor.

In addition, the defendant publicize as a franchisor.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단5025983

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.29 2018나1054

-청주지방법원 2016.08.26 2015가단111488

-전주지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단8386

-대법원 2010. 7. 15. 선고 2010다30041 판결