beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that “after-sales management of a motor vehicle” in the first instance court’s decision 2 and the “after-sales management of a motor vehicle is provided to a customer who purchased a motor vehicle,” and that “The former Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (amended by the former Act No. 8630, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the “Franchis Business Act”) which is in the first instance court’s decision 4th below, from the third to the first instance court’s decision 4th, shall be as follows: “The former Act on Fair Transactions in Franchise Business (amended by the Act No. 8630, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the “Franchis Business Act”) shall be as follows; hereinafter “Franchis Business Act 5th, Dec. 19, 2011; hereinafter “Franchis △△”) shall be as stated in the main sentence of Article 25th to the first instance court’s decision.”
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the notice of termination of the instant franchise agreement issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2009 is unlawful in violation of the termination procedure stipulated in the main sentence of Article 14(1) of the Franchise Business Act, and thus, the termination of the contract is not effective. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the termination of the contract and the suspension of the operation of documentary services. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for damages arising from the termination of the instant franchise agreement. (2) The Defendant asserted that the purport of the instant decision on compulsory adjustment includes the purport that the Defendant is not liable for damages due to the termination of the instant
In addition, the defendant asserts that the instant franchise agreement is a bilateral contract, and that since the plaintiff did not perform the obligations of the franchise business operator under the instant franchise agreement after the termination of the contract, only the defendant is liable to compensate for damages.
The arguments of Gap 3, 4, and 5-1, and 2 shall be made.