beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against each of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding KRW 6,500,000 and KRW 1,500,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around February 21, 2012, the Defendants, who jointly operated a liquid sheet seller with the business name of Defendant C, entered into a sales contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Eart”) and the Defendants with the first floor store located in the Emart located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant store”). Around February 21, 2012, the Defendants agreed that the sales item is a liquid book, and the sales price is deducted from the sales commission (24%) and the Emart shall be paid to the Defendants.
B. Around March 12, 2012, the Defendants, who directly sold liquid books, etc. through the instant store’s discount events, etc., concluded a franchise franchise agreement with the Plaintiff at the place of business. The Plaintiff agreed to sell liquid books supplied by the Defendants at the instant store and receive 15% or 25% of the sales commission.
In addition, the defendants received 5 million won transaction deposit from the plaintiff, and agreed to refund the transaction deposit at the time of the termination of the transaction.
C. According to the above franchise agreement, the Plaintiff sold the amount of accounting, etc. supplied by the Defendants in the instant store. The sales proceeds were deposited directly in the Emart and the Emart deposited the remainder after deducting certain fees directly into the Defendants. The Plaintiff traded in the manner of receiving the sales commission agreed by the Defendants.
However, since April 2012, the sales of the instant store continued to progress, Eart judged that the cause of the sales exhaustion was insufficient for the diversity of the goods supplied by the Defendants, the goods without competitiveness, and the prices at a higher level compared to the quality of the goods, etc., and demanded the Defendants to present the measures against the exhaustion of sales, and the business activation strategies, etc. for the extension of sales.
Accordingly, the Defendants sent their positions through e-mail around April 28, 2012, but activates their businesses to increase sales.