logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나306800
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a teahouse with a trade name “C”.

B. On September 20, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 25,000,000 from the Defendant, a prospective franchisee, and entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant “C” with the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff breached the franchisor’s duty to support the Defendant’s management and business activities by refusing to provide the Defendant’s test drawings. Furthermore, the Plaintiff breached the franchisor’s duty to provide the Defendant with an information disclosure statement prescribed in Article 7 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, and acquired franchise fees by entering into a franchise agreement with the Defendant even though the Defendant did not intend to have the Defendant operate the franchise store from the beginning. Since the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant franchise agreement, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Defendant a franchise fee of KRW 25,00,000, and delay damages incurred by nonperformance or tort.”

(T) Daegu District Court 2018 Ghana238378). (C)

On October 11, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The instant decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on October 30, 2018 without the Plaintiff’s objection.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not a real representative of "C", which is a franchisor, and is not a party who has entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant, and there is no obligation to compensate the defendant for damages equivalent to the above franchise fee.

The plaintiff is compared to the brand image of "C" so that he/she can conduct franchise business with the trade name "G" from friendly job offering F.

arrow