logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가합46096
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is a franchisee who runs a franchisor while running a franchise business in the name of "C" and the Plaintiff is a franchisee who entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant on October 21, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant franchise agreement") with the E store around October 21, 2015.

B. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant franchise agreement will be terminated due to the Defendant’s tort and nonperformance.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion to determine the damages claim following the termination of the instant franchise agreement as to the Plaintiff’s tort and nonperformance as follows. As such, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 283,00,000, 194,40,000, 27,927,800, and 36,265,000,000, which are the franchise fee paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant with trust interest following the termination of the contract.

As a franchisor under the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”), the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement without issuing an information disclosure statement to the franchise trader (Article 7), and breached the obligation to deposit franchise fees.

(2) Article 12 of the Franchise Business Act prohibiting unfair trading is a violation of Article 12 of the Franchise Business Act that the Defendant, upon receiving the first price of the goods from the Plaintiff, supplied goods that are not equivalent to the value, and acquired the difference by calculating the interior cost by falsity.

③ In addition, the Defendant violated the obligation to pay the advance franchise agreement (Article 11), and ④ the supply, salary, education, etc. of the manager of the massage place, which is prohibited by the Franchise Business Act (Article 9).

(5) A defendant who has not been registered as an indoor building business.

arrow