beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is modified as stated in the following 2; and (b) it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following 3. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Revised parts
(a) modify “Article 9” to “Article 9” for the following 7:
B. Removal of the 11-8 Mono part
3. Supplement and addition of judgment [Plaintiff's assertion] asserted as follows.
Each of the instant franchise agreements aims to transfer technical skills, business know-how, etc. possessed by the Plaintiff, which is a franchisor, to the Defendants, a franchisee. As a type of technical franchise, the Plaintiff transferred technical skills, business know-how, etc. to the franchisees, and sells goods continuously supplied to the franchisees according to the franchise agreement, thereby creating business profits.
However, if a franchisee transferred from the Plaintiff completes a franchise agreement unfairly and operates the same kind of enterprise, the Plaintiff is at the risk of leakage of technical records, business know-how, etc. owned by the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff established the penalty provisions of Article 35 of the instant franchise agreement in order to prevent the leakage of technical skills, business know-how, etc. when concluding a franchise agreement with franchisees.
Therefore, as provided in Articles 6 and 8 of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions or Article 12 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, the penalty provision does not constitute an unfair provision that imposes unfair liability for damages or penalty on customers or franchisees unfairly excessive.
[Dissenting of the Defendant] The Defendant, even if so, Article 35 of the instant franchise agreement on penalty.